JAN  ;: 


sec 


T> 


DISSERTATION 


NATIVE    DEPRAVITY 


y 

BY    GARDINER    SPRING, 

PASTOH  OV  THE   DEICK  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  IN  THE  CITY  OF 
NEW-YORK. 


NEW-YORK  : 
PUBLISHED  BY  JONATHAN  LEAVITT,  182  BROADWAY. 

JOHN    T.    WEST,    PRINTER. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1833,  by  John  T.  West, 
HI  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  Southern  District  of  New- York. 


DISSERTATION. 


Within  a  few  years  past,  the  attention  of  the 
churches  has  been  drawn  to  some  novel  specu- 
lations in  theology,  the  nature  and  tendency  of 
which  have  excited  not  a  little  alarm.  With  what 
ingenuousness  and  frankness  of  mind,  they  have 
been  introduced  to  the  consideration  of  the  pub- 
lic, different  men  will  probably  form  a  different 
judgment,  as  they  have  been  more  or  less  ac- 
quainted with  the  history  of  these  discussions. 

The  error  to  which  I  am  about  to  refer  in 
these  pages,  was,  I  distinctly  remember,  a  few 
years  ago,  but  delicately  hinted  at,  and  very 
modestly,  though  assiduously  suggested  in  pri- 
vate conversation.  The  first  assault  upon  the 
Doctrine  of  Native  Depravity  was  from  the  New- 
Haven  School,  and  in  their  own  covered  way 
to  the  field.  Some  few  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
in  high  standing,  and  hitherto  supposed  to  be 
attached  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation, 
began  to  speak  with  an  indefiniteness  and  loose- 
ness on  this  subject,  to  which  they  had  not  been 
accustomed.    They  were  not  prepared  either  to 


affirm  or  deny ;  but  their  minds  seemed  to  be  in 
a  state  of  painful  hesitation  and  scepticism. 
Tlierj  could  not  tell;  they  did  not  know,  what 
the  Bible  taught  in  relation  to  the  native  cha- 
racter of  our  fallen  race.  Ask  them  whether 
men  are  born  sinners,  and  they  would  tell  yoUj 
we  do  not  know.  Ask  them  whether  infants  pos- 
sess any  moral  character,  and  they  would  reply, 
we  do  not  know.  Ask  them  whether  they  are 
accountable  beings;  and  they  would  tell  you, 
we  do  not  knoic.  Ask  them  whether  they  need 
the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  they  answered,  we  do 
not  know.  Ask  them  what  becomes  of  infants 
when  they  die ;  and  they  said  we  do  not  know. 
Ask  them  whether  death  in  relation  to  infants, 
is  by  sin;  and  they  still  say,  loe  do  not  know. 

But  this  period  of  hesitation  and  scepticism  has 
gone  by.  The  scriptural  doctrine  of  native  depra- 
vity is  now  boldly  denied.  Plain  and  palpable 
efforts  are  now  made  in  a  number  of  reviews  of 
the  works  of  Bellamy,  Edwards  and  Dwight,  the 
design  of  which  is  to  set  aside  their  views  on  this 
and  other  kindred  doctrines.  For  a  considerable 
time  past,  it  has  been  unhesitatingly  maintained, 
that  all  mankind  are  born  destitute  of  moral 
character,  and  are  neither  holy,  nor  sinful — that 
though  they  are  destitute  of  original  righteous- 
ness, they  are  free  from  sin,  and  have  no  moral 
corruption  of  nature  or  propensity  to  evil — that 
they  are  perfectly  imiocent— that  they  have  no 


more  moral  character  than  animals — and,  that 
they  come  into  existence  in  the  same  state  in 
wliich  Adam  was  before  his  fall,  and  in  which 
the  holy  child  Jesus  was  when  he  was  born  in 
the  manger.* 

We  should  have  no  particular  motives  to  dis- 
turb men  in  these  notions,  if  we  did  not  believe 
them  to  be  both  false  and  dangerous.  But  con- 
fident of  this,  we  are  not  at  liberty  any  longer  to 
be  silent.  We  sincerely  hope  the  time  has  come, 
when  this  subject  will  undergo  a  faithful  discus- 
sion. If  we  are  not  deceived,  truth  is  very 
precious  to  us ;  and  we  care  not  how,  or  through 
whose  instrumentality,  we  find  it.  If  the  doc- 
trine on  which  we  propose  to  submit  a  few  re- 
marks in  the  following  pages,  be  not  found  in  the 
Bible,  we  have  no  such  attachments  to  it,  and  no 
such  habits  of  thinking,  as  to  be  unw  illing  they 
should  all  be  broken  up.  We  will  surrender  our- 
selves to  no  theory,  no  adventurous  speculations, 
no  previous  mode  of  tlmikmg.  But  if  we  know 
ourselves,  we  mean  to  bow  to  the  decisions  of 
God's  holy  w^ord.  To  the  laio  and  to  the  testi- 
mony; if  IDC  speak  not  according  to  these,  it  is 
because  there  is  no  ligJit  in  us.  Most  cheerfully 
do  we  join  issue  with  a  writer  whom  we  very 
highly  esteem,  on  the  other  side  of  the  question, 
and  say,  "  Speak  conscience — Christian  kind- 
ness— God's  Holy  Word — and  I  ask  for  no  more." 

*  Vid.  The  Christian  Spectator,  and  Stuart  on  the  Romans,  sparsim. 


In  opposition  to  the  views  we  have  recited,  our 
object  in  this  dissertation  is  to  show  that 

Infants  are  Sinners. — 

It  will  greatly  facilitate  our  inquiries,  to  pre- 
sent as  clear  and  intelligible  an  illustration 

AS  WE  CAN,  of  what  WE    MEAN    BY   THE    DoCTRINE 

OF  Native  Depravity.  The  Bible  affixes  a  defi- 
nite idea  to  the  word  Sin,  and  a  well  defined 
character  to  the  term  Sinner.  In  one  place  it 
declares.  All  imrighteousncss  is  sin.  In  another 
it  says,  To  him  that  knoioeth  to  do  good,  and 
doeth  it  not,  to  him  it  is  sin.  And  in  another 
it  says,  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  law.  It  is 
obvious  that  sin  is  predicable  only  of  an  intelli- 
gent being,  and  that  in  such  a  being,  it  consists 
in  the  transgression  of  law.  It  is,  as  the  origi- 
nal word  denotes,  missing  the  mark  of  duty — 
variation  from  rule — deviation  from  the  right 
line.  It  bears  relation  to  some  standard.  Where 
there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression.  Sin  is 
not  imputed  ichere  there  is  no  law.  Wherever, 
therefore,  there  is  a  deviation  from  law,  there, 
and  only  there,  is  sin. 

Sin  is  something  which  lias  positive  exist- 
ence. It  is  not,  as  has  been  affirmed,  a  mere 
"  principle  of  defectibility ;"  a  negative  existence, 
nor  does  it  consist  in  the  mere  want,  or  absence 
of  holiness.*     We  hold  it  to  be  a  A-ery  plain 

*  This  notion  of  sin  was  adopted  by  the  late  Dr.  Williams,  of  England,  and 
Dr.  Wilson,  of  Philadelphia. 


truth,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  sin,  if  it  be 
not  some  positive  existence.  A  block  of  marble, 
a  lamb,  or  an  idiot,  is  destitute  of  holiness ;  but 
their  want  of  holiness  is  not  sin.  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  the  mere  want  of  holiness  in  an 
intelligent,  rational  creature.  This  moral  vacuum 
is  never  found  in  the  mind.  In  every  mind  that 
neglects  to  conform  itself  to  law,  there  is  a  rea- 
son, a  motive  for  this  negligence ;  and  that  is,  the 
soul  is  pre-occupied  by  its  own  self-indulgent 
and  sinful  inclinations.  The  mind  is  like  a  line 
or  rod  which  has  two  faults ;  one  is,  that  it  is  not 
straight ;  the  other  is,  that  it  is  crooked.  It  is 
as  essential  to  the  nature  of  mind,  to  be  posi- 
tively holy,  or  positively  sinful,  as  it  is  to  the 
nature  of  a  line  or  rod,  to  be  positively  straight, 
or  positively  crooked.  A  being  invested  with 
the  faculties  of  perception,  reason,  and  conscience, 
is  under  law ;  and  he  must  either  positively  fulfill 
or  positively  violate  it.  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  the  failure  to  fulfill,  without  positive  violation. 
The  Scriptures  no  where  contemplate  any  such 
state  of  moral  character,  as  the  mere  defect  of 
holiness,  or  negative  transgression.  He  that  is 
not  with  me  is  against  me.  All  unrighteousness 
is  sin.  Sin  would  be  a  very  harmless  thing  if  it 
consisted  in  the  mere  defect  of  holiness.  What 
is  mere  negation,  but  nothing  7  It  is  neither  a 
cause,  nor  an  effect,  and  has  neither  moral  quality, 
nor  agent.     No  being  can  cause  it,  none  can  com- 


8 


mit  it ;  nor  is  it  any  thing  unles.s  it  has  positive 
existence. 

Sin  is  an  intemial  emotion  of  the  mind.  It 
consists  in  the  disposition,  the  moral  feelmgs  or 
inclinations  of  the  soul.  External  conduct, 
actual  or  overt  transgression  is  sin,  only  because 
it  is  the  expression  of  wrong  feelings  of  heart. 
Iniquity  that  lies  concealed  in  the  heart,  is  as 
really  iniquity  as  though  it  w^ere  acted  out ;  nor 
would  its  sensible  forms  of  transgression  ever 
exist  but  for  the  iniquity  of  the  heart. 

Sin  consists  in  a  su2)remehjscljishs2nrit,  whether 
it  be  acted  out  or  not.  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of 
laic.  Not  every  kind  of  love ;  for  men  may  love 
God  and  their  fellow  men  from  a  supreme  regard 
to  themselves;  and  this  would  imply  that  they 
love  themselves  more  than  either.  The  law 
forbids  a  spirit  that  is  supremely  selfish,  and 
denounces  it  as  crime,  and  as  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  all  wickedness.  Thou  shalt  not  covet. 
There  is  nothing  kind  or  honorable ;  equitable 
or  ingenuous ;  pure,  lovely  or  true,  that  termi- 
nates in  self,  or  that  can  be  gratified  when  self 
is  on  the  throne.  Selfishness  is  that  ^^rmci/^/e  of 
wickedness,  that  vitiated  moral  taste,  which  is 
antecedent  to  all  other  internal  emotions,  and 
inclinations  of  wickedness ;  which  is  the  source 
and  foundation  of  them,  and  which  gives  them 
their  moral  character.  This  is  the  spirit  which 
is  the  germ  of  enmity  against  God.     This  is  the 


spirit  which  unbridled  and  unrestrained,  sinks 
men  to  all  that  is  earthly^  sensual  and  devilish ; 
which  comprises  and  binds  together  the  most 
depraved  affections,  and  abject  vices ;  which 
stimulates  to  every  unhallowed  emotion,  and 
incites  to  every  foul  deed.  There  is  nothing  that 
countervails  the  pure  and  lovely  spirit  of  the 
divine  law,  which  is  not  the  legitimate  offspring 
of  that  mother  monster,  Supreme  Selfishness. 

Sin  therefore,  from  its  nature,  is  a  moral  and 
not  a  natural  or  physical  evil.  It  is  not  pain  nor 
suffering.  The  famine,  the  earthquake,  the  pes- 
tilence, are  evils:  but  they  are  natural  evils; 
and  no  man  thinks  of  accusing  or  criminating 
them.  We  contemplate  them  with  horror  and 
dread,  but  we  never  contemplate  them  as  the 
subjects  of  blame,  nor  think  of  reproving  or 
punishing  them.  But  sin  is  a  different  tiling.  It 
is  criminal,  and  blameworthy  We  reprove, 
condemn,  prohibit  and  punish  it.  It  is  in  its  own 
nature  detestable  and  odious.  God  hates  it 
infinitely,  wherever  it  is  found,  in  every  degree 
and  forever. 

This  is  what  we  mean  by  sin.  I  know  of  no 
other  sin  in  the  empire  of  Jehovah  except  this. 
When  we  say  that  men  are  sinners,  we  mean  to 
say,  they  are  the  doers  and  perpetrators  of  this 
foul  deed.  Some  give  expression  and  palpable- 
ness  to  this  odious  spirit ;  some  cherish  it  simply 
within  their  own  bosoms,  and  are  unable  to 
exhibit  it  to  the  eye  of  men      ^ome  commit  it 


10 

under  great  aggravations,  and  in  great  enormity ; 
and  some  in  modifications  so  mild  and  alluring, 
that  it  looks  like  innocence  and  virtue.  Nor  is 
the  vile  nature  of  sin  altered  by  any  considera- 
tions of  age  or  infancy  in  the  being  in  whose 
bosom  it  dwells.  What  constitutes  that  living 
thing,  that  busy  existence,  the  human  soul,  a 
sinner  at  the  age  of  three-score  years  and  ten, 
essentially  constitutes  it  a  sinner  from  its  birth. 

Our  illustration  of  the  doctrine  of  Native 
Depravity  therefore,  will  not,  we  think,  be  misun- 
derstood. We  mean  by  it,  that  every  child  of 
Adam  is  a  sinne?^,  and  from  the  moment  he 
becomes  a  child  of  Adam.  He  may  not  be  a 
sinner  in  the  eye  of  men,  but  he  is  a  sinner  at 
heart,  and  in  the  sight  of  God.  He  sins,  not  in 
deed,  nor  word,  but  in  thought.  The  thought  of 
foolishness  is  sin.  An  infant  is  not  a  giant,  either 
in  form,  or  wickedness ;  but  he  is  a  sinful  infant. 
In  body  and  mind  he  is  a  little  infant.  And  so 
in  sin,  he  is  a  little  infant — a  man  in  miniature — 
not  the  bold  and  striking  portrait,  but  the  perfect 
miniature  of  fallen,  sinning  man. 

The  question.  Whether  infants  are  capable 
OF  MORAL  CHARACTER,  is  vital  to  tliis  wliole  dis- 
cussion.  And  here  we  have  to  make  and  illustrate 
but  a  single  enquiry.  Has  the  infant  a  soul — a 
rational,  immortal  soul?  Of  the  period  of  its 
mere  animal  existence,  we  do  not  predicate  moral 
character.  It  is  not  the  investiture  with  a  mere 
animal  frame,  that  constitutes  the  being  human ; 


11 


but  the  mysterious  union  of  the  body  and  the 
soul :  and  of  every  such  existence  moral  character 
can  be  predicated.  If  God  has  breathed  into  its 
nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  it  has  become  a 
livifig  soul;  though  its  body  is  a  little  thing — a 
mere  mass  of  organic  matter  fitted  up  for  the 
living  spirit  to  dwell  in,  and  to  die,  and  return 
to  dust  when  the  spirit  takes  its  flight  to  her  own 
eternity,  yet  is  it  a  spiritual,  acting  existence, 
and  possesses  a  character  as  really  as  it  will 
possess  it  in  the  ages  of  eternity. 

Of  the  essence  of  the  human  soul,  even  in 
adults,  we  know  nothing.  Of  the  properties 
essential  to  its  existence,  we  know  all  that  is 
necessary  for  us  to  know,  from  our  own  conscious- 
ness, and  the  testimony  of  Him  that  made  it. 
So  far  as  we  have  any  thing  to  do  with  the  soul 
in  moral  science,  and  especially  in  the  present 
discussion,  it  consists  of  natural  faculties  and 
moral  dispositions.  Its  natural  faculties  are  Per- 
ception, Reason,  Conscience  and  Memory.  We 
call  these  natural  faculties^  in  distinction  from 
moral  dispositions,  because  they  are  independent 
of  the  Will,  and  belong  to  the  intellectual  and 
not  to  the  moral  character.  We  perceive,  reason, 
remember,  and  approve  or  condemn  our  moral 
conduct,  whether  we  wish  to  do  it  or  not.  The 
moral  dispositions  are  those  internal  operations, 
or  emotions  of  the  mind,  which  can  be  compared 
with  a  rule  of  action,  commanding  what  is  right 
and  prohibiting  what  is  wrong — and  that  whether 


12 

it  be  written  or  unwritten  law,  natural  or  reveal- 
ed, the  law  of  reason  and  conscience,  or  the  law  ol 
God.  They  constitute  what  the  Scriptures  mean 
by  the  heart  in  distinction  from  the  natural  facul- 
ties and  the  external  conduct.  Nor  is  there  any 
holiness  or  sin  except  what  is  found  in  these 
moral  dispositions.  Take  away  these,  and  if  we 
except  the  essence  of  the  soul,  there  is  nothing 
left  but  the  natural  faculties,  nothing  which  de- 
serves praise  or  blame,  nothing  which  a  rule  of 
action  either  requires  or  forbids,  Its  natural 
faculties,  and  moral  dispositions  therefore,  com- 
prise all  that  is  known  concerning  the  soul,  as  the 
subject  of  divine  government. 

Now  these  natural  and  moral  properties  are 
essential  to  the  souVs  existence.  They  belong  to 
the  infant  of  a  day  old,  as  really  as  to  the  man  of 
eighty.  Who  ever  heard  or  conceived  of  a 
living  immortal  soul,  without  natural  faculties, 
and  moral  dispositions  ?  Every  infant  that  has 
attained  maturity  enough  to  have  a  soul,  has  such 
a  soul  as  this.  It  is  a  soul  which  perceives, 
reasons,  remembers,  feels,  chooses,  and  lias  the 
faculty  of  judging  of  its  own  moral  dispositions. 
Conscience  belongs  to  the  soul  as  really  as  per- 
ception and  reason.  This  a  late  and  distinguished 
writer  acknowledges,  though  in  tlie  same  discus- 
sion he  denies  that  infants  are  capable  of  sinning. 
His  words  are,  "  It  may  be  said  with  truth,  that 
moral  sense,  conscience,  reavson,  judgment,  are  all 
attributes  of  the  natural   man;    that  they  are 


13 


pura  natiiialiar*  One  of  the  obvioii.s  distiiic 
tions  between  men  and  the  inferior  animals  is, 
that  men  have  a  conscience.  Inferior  animals 
have  no  faculty  of  distinguishing  between  right 
and  wrong,  or  moral  good  and  evil,  and  no  moral 
sense.  This  is  what  renders  them  incapable  of 
moral  action.  Nor  can  any  growth  or  enlarge- 
ment of  the  faculties  they  possess,  any  superadded 
strength  to  their  perceptions,  their  memory,  or 
their  preferences,  or  any  improvement  in  their 
imitative  powers,  or  instinct,  impart  this  faculty 
of  moral  discernment  or  moral  sense.  But  the 
youngest  human  soul  possesses  this,  as  the  imme- 
diate gift  of  its  Creator.  There  is  no  more  reason 
to  believe  that  an  infant  is  destitute  of  conscience, 
than  that  it  is  destitute  of  intelligence,  or  even 
of  a  soul.  Conscience  belongs  to  the  soul,  as 
really  as  veins,  arteries,  muscles  and  membrane 
belong  to  the  body.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that 
even  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  Infant 
Depravity,  cannot  give  a  definition  of  the  human 
soul,  without  investing  it  with  such  attributes  as 
render  it  impossible  for  it  not  to  possess  a  moral 
cliaracter.  A  writer  who  denies  this  doctrine,  in 
giving  an  account  of  the  human  soul  says,  "  It  is 
the  nature  of  the  human  soul,  to  perceive,  to 
compare,  to  judge.  God  formed  it  to  be  a  thinking 
being.  The  power  of  choosing  or  refusing  in  the 
view  of  motives,  and  with  a  knowledge  of  right 
and  wrong,  is  that  moral  nature  which  every 

*  Stuart  on  the  Romans,  Excursus  5th. 


14 

accountable  being  receives  from  the  hand  of  his 
Creator."*  Hence  those  who  have  denied  a 
moral  character  to  infants,  have  by  their  own 
philosophy,  been  led  to  deny  or  doubt  whether 
infants  have  any  souls  at  all. 

Nor  is  it  any  evidence  that  infants  are  destitute 
of  a  moral  character,  that  it  is  not  strongly  indi- 
cated by  external  symbols.  A  man  in  a  swoon 
furnishes  no  external  indications  of  a  moral 
character;  no,  not  so  much  as  an  infant.  Sir 
Isaac  Newton,  wasted  and  emaciated  and  pros- 
trated by  typhus  fever,  so  that  he  cannot  move  a 
limb  or  muscle,  or  even  speak,  furnishes  no  exter- 
nal indications  of  moral  character ;  no,  not  so 
much  even  as  an  infant ;  nor  can  he  make  himself 
heard,  or  make  his  wants  known,  half  so  well. 
And  yet  who  doubts  that  adults  under  all  this 
physical  prostration,  have  a  moral  character? 
Neither  intellectual  nor  moral  character  are 
always  visible  to  the  eye  of  sense.  What  if  an 
angel  stooping  from  his  high  abode,  should  look 
down  upon  such  men  as  Dr.  Fitch,  and  Dr. 
Taylor,  and  say  within  himself — Who  are  these 
men  that  inhabit  yonder  planet,  and  what  are 
they  doing  that  they  make  so  much  noise  in  the 
world'?  I  cannot  discover  any  operations  of 
mind  or  heart  in  them.  It  may  be  that  their 
intellectual  and  moral  powers  may  be  hereafter 
developed;  but  I  doubt  very  much  whether  they 
are  capable  of  moral  action.     They  have,  it  is 

*  Christian  Spectator  for  June,  1829,  p.  348. 


15 

true,  "  no  original  righteousness ;"  but  they  are 
quite  '' inrwcent,  innocuous"  and  most  certainly 
do  not  possess  any  intellectual  or  moral  character ! 
Would  not  his  Creator  reprove  his  presumption 
and  scepticism,  and  tell  him  that  these  apparently 
abject  creatures  are  very  distinguished  men,  and 
a  very  different  order  of  beings  from  what  they 
appear  to  be  in  the  judgment  of  one  who  has 
ventured  so  rashly  to  decide  on  their  endow- 
ments?— And  is  it  not  possible  that  an  angel 
may  be  as  far  above  Dr.  Fitch  and  Dr.  Taylor, 
as  these  distinguished  men  are  above  infants? 
The  little  infant  may  have  a  moral  character, 
though  the  opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  Native 
Depravity  do  not  believe  it ;  he  may  have  a  moral 
character,  though  it  were  known  only  to  angels ; 
or  even  only  to  the  great  and  heart-searching 
God.  And  this  view  of  the  subject  is  the  only 
one  which  accords  with  the  account  the  Scrip- 
tures give  of  the  moral  character  of  infants. 

If  there  be  any  such  deficiency  in  the  intellec- 
tual or  moral  constitution  of  an  infant  as  incapa- 
citates it  for  moral  character,  it  must  exist  either 
in  the  nature  of  that  constitution,  or  the  degree 
of  it.  If  it  be  in  its  nature,  then  is  the  soul  of 
man  from  its  very  nature  incapable  of  moral 
character,  nor  is  there  any  thing  in  its  spiritual 
and  immortal  existence,  that  ensures  its  moral 
character  at  any  future  period.  It  is  an  imma- 
terial, immortal  spirit ;  but  it  has  no  powers  of 
moral  character,  and  never  can  have  without 


16 


possessing  new  faculties  and  a  new  nature.  And 
what  sort  of  soul  is  that  which  must  be  thus 
transformed  before  it  can  be  capable  of  a  moral 
character  7  But  if  the  deiiciency  is  found  in  the 
measure  and  degree  of  this  intellectual  and 
moral  constitution,  so  that  the  soul  requires  no 
new  faculties,  but  simply  growth  and  enlarge- 
ment; how  is  this  deficiency  to  be  supplied  7 
There  would  be  no  difficulty  in  answering  this 
(luestion,  if  at  its  original  creation  the  soul  were 
in  any  degree  capable  of  moral  exercises.  But 
by  the  hypothesis  under  consideration,  it  is  not 
capable  of  moral  exercise  in  any  degree,  and 
requires  growth  and  enlargement  to  become 
capable.  How  then  is  this  spiritual,  immortal 
existence  to  become  capable  of  moral  exercises'? 
Mind  does  not  grow  like  a  vegetable.  It  cannot 
be  enlarged  by  granulation,  or  by  any  gradual  ac- 
cession to  its  bulk  and  size.  It  erpands  and 
becomes  vigorous  only  by  action.  But  if  the  hy- 
pothesis on  which  we  are  animadverting  be  true, 
it  is  impossible  for  it  ever  to  become  more  ex- 
panded and  vigorous.  It  is  not  capable  of  exer- 
cise in  the  least  degree.  It  has  nothing  to  begin 
with.  I  ask  then  again  how  is  this  deficiency 
to  be  supplied?  If  this  hypothesis  be  true,  it 
never  can  be  supplied,  but  must  either  be  endued 
with  new  faculties,  or  remain  inactive  and  inca- 
pable of  moral  character  forever.  If  then  every 
human  being  possesses  at  its  birth,  an  immaterial, 
immortal  soul,  he  is  at  the  instant  of  his  creation 


17 

capable  of  possessing  a  moral  character  ;  and  is 
from  his  nature  a  moral  and  accountable  being, 
under  a  law  which  he  either  obeys  or  trans- 
gresses. If  his  moral  feelings  are  not  right,  they 
are  wrong ;  and  if  he  is  not  a  holy  and  virtuous 
being,  he  is  a  sinner. 

Should  it  be  said  that  even  upon  the  principles 
here  contended  for,  it  is  impossible  for  the  soul  of 
an  infant  to  possess  a  moral  character  until  after 
it  is  created,  and  therefore  some  time  must  elapse 
between  its  creation  and  its  moral  character,  and 
therefore  it  cannot  literally  commence  its  exist- 
ence a  sinner ;  we  are  constrained  to  say  this  is  a 
mere  metaphysical  quibble.  As  well  might  it  be 
said,  there  is  some  conceivable  time  between  the 
creation  of  matter  and  its  essential  properties, 
as  to  say  there  is  some  conceivable  time  between 
the  creation  of  mind  and  its  moral  character. 
The  sun,  for  example,  is  the  source  of  light  and 
heat ;  and  at  the  instant  of  its  creation,  it  shines 
and  warms.  No  more  is  there  a  measurable 
period  of  time  between  the  creation  of  the  sun, 
and  the  emission  and  diffusion  of  its  beams,  than 
there  is  a  measurable  period  of  time  between  the 
creation  of  the  soul  and  its  accountable  charac- 
ter. There  is  no  more  difficulty  therefore  in 
conceiving  an  infant  to  be  capable  of  moral  cha- 
racter, than  there  is  in  conceiving  an  adult  to  be 
so.  Under  the  uniform  government  of  the  Most 
High,  who  has  ev^ery  where  established  the  laws 
of  mind  as  well  as  of  matter,  and  who  governs 


18 

the  intellectual  and  moral  as  well  as  the  physical 
universe,  moral  dispositions  and  moral  character, 
though  differing  greatly  in  degree,  are  essentially 
the  same  in  both,  and  are  the  uniform  result  of 
the  same  intellectual  and  moral  constitution. 
And  if  it  be  not  so,  in  what  light  are  we  to  con- 
sider infants  as  the  creatures  of  God  ?  What  are 
the  rights  of  their  Creator  ?  What  are  their  own 
responsibilities  ?  Obviously,  he  has  no  rights  over 
them  except  as  a  mere  sovereign.  Moral  govern- 
ment, he  has  none. — Nor  have  they  any  moral 
responsibilities.  And  what  becomes  of  them  as 
the  creatures  of  God,  if  they  die  in  infancy? 
They  have  no  moral  character.  They  are  re- 
.sponsible  to  no  tribunal.  They  are  not  annihi- 
lated, because  the  soul  is  immortal.  Either  then, 
they  must  remain  through  interminable  ages  de- 
void of  moral  character  and  responsibility,  or 
form  their  moral  character  in  another  and  future 
state  of  existence. 

But  we  rest  not  the  argument  on  the  ground 
of  human  philosophy.  Our  appeal  is  to  the 
testimony  of  God.  Has  God  revealed  the  doc- 
trine of  Native  Depravity  7    This  is  the  question. 

The  Bible  informs  us  that  Native  Depravity 

IS  A  C0NSEQ,UENCE  OP  THE  APOSTACY  OF    OUR    FIRST 

ANCESTOR.  I  find  in  the  Bible  such  declarations 
as  these.  Through  the  offence  of  one,  many  are 
dead.  Judgment  2vas  by  one  to  condemnation. 
By  one  man^s  offence,  death  reigned  by  one.  By 
the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men 


19 

to  condemnation.  By  one  man^s  disobedience, 
many  icere  made  sinners.  In  Adam  all  die. 
What  is  the  import  of  these  declarations  ?  Is  it 
not,  to  say  the  least,  that  such  is  the  connection 
between  the  apostacy  of  our  first  ancestor,  and 
the  character  of  all  his  descendants,  that  it  might 
have  been  predicted  from  the  day  of  his  apostacy, 
that  every  one  of  his  descendants  would  come 
into  the  world  sinners  ?  Is  it  not,  that  the  uni- 
versal sinfulness  of  mankind  is  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  first  oflfence  of  the  first  man ;  and  that  his 
apostacy  introduced  sin  and  death  among  all  his 
natural  descendants,  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion? Our  minds  need  not  here  be  perplexed 
with  systems  and  theories,  if  we  assent  to  this 
great  fact  that  for  his  apostacy  a  righteous  God 
has  determined  to  bring  all  his  posterity  into  the 
world  sinners.  By  the  doctrine  of  the  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  sin,  many  of  the  Reformers 
meant  that  innate  moral  depravity  of  heart,  and 
consequent  condemnation,  which  came  upon  all 
his  posterity  by  his  first  offence.  This  appears 
to  me  to  be  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  and  the 
doctrine  of  Native  Depravity,  as  they  are  taught 
in  the  passages  we  have  just  recited.  By  the 
wise  appointment  of  a  righteous  God,  this  pri- 
mitive sin  constituted  all  his  posterity  sinners. 
When  he  fell,  prospectively  considered,  they  fell; 
and  from  the  moment  of  his  apostacy,  the  entire 
race,  of  every  age  and  every  condition,  down  to 
the  last  infant  that  should  be  born  on  the  earth, 


20 

rose  up  to  the  view  of  the  divine  mi«ul,  as  lost  and 
ruined  by  their  iniquity.  Such  is  the  condition 
to  w^hich  the  first  apostacy  introduced  the  race. 
We  have  in  these  texts  then  a  declaration  of 
the  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity.  If  sin  and 
condemnation  come  upon  all  the  posterity  of 
Adam,  then  are  they  sinners  as  soon  as  they  be- 
come his  posterity.  If  not,  then  multitudes  of 
his  posterity  never  become  sinners  at  all,  because 
they  die  in  their  infancy.  It  is  supremely  frivo- 
lous to  say,  that  "  Adam's  sin  was  connected  with 
the  sin  and  consequent  condemnation  of  all  his 
posterity,"*  if  a  large  portion  of  his  posterity 
live  and  die  without  being  sinners  in  any  sense. 
How  can  this  be  true,  if  infants  are  innocent  ? 
If  this  concession  means  any  thing,  it  must 
surely  mean  that  by  the  disobedience  of  Adam, 
all  icill  become  sinners^  if  they  live  long  enough ! 
But  this  is  not  the  doctrine  of  Paul.  This  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,  when  he  says.  That 
ichich  is  horn  of  the  fleshy  is  flesh.  This  was  not 
the  doctrine  of  the  Patriarchal  age,  when  it  was 
demanded,  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an 
unclean?  What  is  man  that  he  should  be  clean, 
and  he  that  is  bor7i  of  a  ivoma7i,  that  he  should,  be 
righteous?  Nor  is  this  the  doctrine  of  any  of 
the  analogies  of  nature ;  where  we  see  that  all 
creatures,  throughout  the  vegetable  and  animal 
kingdoms,  which  come  into  being  in  a  series  of 
generations,  produce  each  its  own  likeness.     Nor 

+  Vid.  Stuarl'B  Excursus. 


21 

is  it  tlie  doctrine  of  tlie  intellectual  and  moral 
kingdoms;  where,  without  some  counteracting 
influence,  all  the  peculiarities  of  intellect,  genius, 
temper  and  moral  disposition,  distinguish  the  son 
and  the  sire.  Nor  was  this  the  doctrine  taught 
in  the  early  history  of  our  race,  when  in  the 
Mosaic  narrative  of  the  birth  of  Seth,  it  is  said, 
Adam,  begat  a  son  in  his  oivn  likeness^  after  his 
image;  plainly  recognising  the  humbling  fact, 
that  the  children  of  Adam  were  born  with  the 
same  depraved  character  with  their  apostate 
father.  That  there  is  this  connection  between 
the  sin  of  Adam  and  all  his  posterity,  is  obvious 
from  the  plain  declarations  of  Paul  in  the  pas- 
sages above  recited,  and  cannot  be  denied  without 
impugning  their  obvious  meaning.  The  opposite 
of  this  position  is,  that  a  large  portion  of  Adam's 
race  live  and  die,  and  death  passes  upon  them 
without  their  possessing  any  moral  character 
whatever. 

Nor  is  it  any  argument  against  this  general 
consideration,  that  in  nothing  is  the  resemblance 
between  the  parent  and  the  child  so  strong  and 
so  uniform  as  in  moral  depravity ;  for  this  only 
proves  the  peculiar  strength  and  uniformity  of 
this  moral  bond,  and  the  peculiar  accordance  of 
facts,  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Nor  is  it 
any  objection  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  the 
moral  character  of  infants  depends  not  on  their 
immediate  ancestor,  but  on  their  connection  w  ith 
Adam :  for   God  reveals   the  one.  and  not  the 


22 

other.  Neither  the  Bible  nor  experience  shows 
that  there  is  any  natural  connection  between  the 
piety  of  the  father,  and  the  native  character  of 
the  son.  All  that  is  said  on  this  point  is  only 
reasoning  against  Paul.*  And  we  may  also 
remark,  that  it  is  altogether  an  assumption  that 
Native  Depravity  is  uniform  and  invariable,  in 
all  circumstances,  ages  and  individuals,  and  is 
incapable  either  of  diminution,  increase,  or  modi- 
fication. This  cannot  be  proved.  And  if  I  mis- 
take not,  it  is  generally  conceded  that  it  is  capa- 
ble of  all ;  and  often  expresses  itself  in  wonder- 
ful accordance  with  the  peculiar  moral  tempera- 
ment of  the  depraved  parent.! 

Again :  The  Bible  affirms  that  the  children 
OF  MEN  are  all  gone  aside,  and  are  altogether 
become  filthy ;  that  the  heart  is  deceitful  above 
all  things,  and  desperately  wicked;  and  that 
MAN  is  a  being  so  abominable  and  filthy,  that 
he  drinketh  in  iniquity  like  water.  The  Bible 
affirms,  that  all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of 
the  glory  of  God ;  that  Jeivs  and  Gentiles  are  all 
under  sin  ;  that  by  the  deeds  of  laio  shall  no  flesh 
be  justified ;  and  that  the  whole  world  is  guilty 

*  Vid.  Stuart's  Excursus. 

t  Dr.  Stuart  does  not  fairly  allege  the  objection  against  President  Edwards 
m  his  Commentary  on  Rom.  5:  19.  p.  241.  He  says,  "  President  Edwards 
must  on  his  own  principles  admit,  that  we  should  a?^  have  fallen,  had  we  like 
Adam  been  placed  in  a  state  of  holiness.  The  corruption  therefore,  by  his 
own  arguments,  would  have  been  just  as  universal  as  it  now  is,  if  all  men 
had  been  placed  on  trial  in  a  state  of  innocence."  This  does  not  follow.  Adam 
was  for  a  season,  perhaps  a  long  season,  perfectly  holy.  But  this  is  not  true 
of  any  of  his  posterity.  According  to  Dr.  Stuart,  they  fall  as  soon  as  they  are 
eapable  of  falling.    How  then  are  the  cases  parallel? 


23 


before  God.  Now  a  plain  man  who  desires  his 
decisions  should  be  formed  by  God's  Holy  Word, 
w^ould,  one  would  think,  view  these  and  similar 
declarations,  as  including  the  entire  race  from 
the  youngest  to  the  oldest,  and  from  the  first 
apostacy,  down  to  the  end  of  time.  If  infants 
belong  to  the  children  of  men;  if  they  have  a 
heart  and  soul ;  then  from  the  moment  they  are 
human  and  the  descendants  of  Adam,  are  they 
sinners.  The  reply  to  this  has  been,  that  infants 
cannot  be  included  in  these  declarations,  because 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  they  are  iiicapahle  of 
sinning !  This  is  a  very  compendious  way  of 
settling  the  question.  The  man  who  makes  this 
declaration,  sits  in  the  chair  of  philosophy,  and 
prejudges  the  case.  He  first  decides  that  infants 
are  incapable  of  sinning,  and  then  he  comes  to  the 
Bible  to  inquire  what  God  says  concerning  the 
moral  character  of  infants.  He  first  decides  that 
infants  are  incapable  of  sinning,  and  then  every 
text  must  be  interpreted  according  to  his  previous 
decision.*  But  who  knows  best  whether  infants 
are  capable  of  sinning  7  the  God  only  wise,  or 
the  presumptuous  objector?  The  history  of  the 
church,  and  the  present  state  of  it  in  our  country 
are  melancholy  proofs  of  the  pernicious  influence 
of  false  philosophy  in  limiting  and  defining  the 
import  of  God's  Holy  Word.  No  man  has  a 
right  to  say,  with  the  Bible  in  his  hand,  that 
infants  are  incapable  of  sinning.     No  man  can 

*  Vid.  Christian  Spectator,  Review  of  Harvey  and  Taylor. 


24 


prove  upon  the  principles  of  sound  philosophy, 
that  infants  are  incapable  of  sinning.* 

The  Bible  informs  us  that  men  are  born  in 

INICIUITY,  AND    CONCEIVED    IN    SIN.       Beholcl,  I  lOttS 

shapcn  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  con- 
ceive 7ne.  Can  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  im- 
port of  this  confession  7  The  object  of  this  psalm, 
one  would  think  could  not  be  mistaken.  It  ex- 
presses the  feelings  of  a  genuine  penitent,  and  is 
strikingly  descriptive  of  the  remorse,  self-abase- 
ment, confusion  and  anguish  of  soul,  he  felt  in 
view  of  his  sins.  Nor  was  it  enough  for  him  to 
confess  his  outward  sins,  without  bemoaning  his 
inward  defilement.  Nor  did  he  know  where  to 
stop  in  this  confession,  until  he  had  gone  back  to 
the  very  commencement  of  his  existence,  and 
confessed  that  he  was  horn  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin 
did  his  mother  co7iceive  him.  A  late  writer,  as 
we  conceive,  unhappily,  inquires  in  respect  to  this 
text,  ''  To  whom  then  does  the  iniquity  spoken 
of  in  this  place  belong  7  To  the  mother  or  the 
child  ?    I  venture  to  say  that  exegetical  conside- 

♦Prof.  Stuart,  in  his  5th  Excursus,  subjoined  to  his  Commentary  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  frequently  affirms  that  infants  are  incapable  of  sinning"; 
and  yet  in  the  same  discussion,  p.  541,  helms  the  following  remarks:  "What- 
ever then  may  be  the  degradation  in  which  we  are  now  born,  degradation 
compared  with  the  original  state  of  Adam,  we  are  still  born  onoral  agents ; 
free  agents  ;  with  faculties  to  do  good,  yea,  all  the  faculties  that  are  needed. 
Elsewhere  he  says,  "Plainly  they  may  be  moral  and  free  agents,  before  they 
can  read  the  Scriptures!"  We  leave  the  author  to  vindicate  himself  from 
this  palpable  inconsistency.  To  us  it  appears,  that  if  we  are  born  moral 
agents — free  agents,  it  is  no  unsound  conclusion  that  we  are  born  capable  ol 
smning.  The  author  must  have  forgotten  the  ancient  authority  of  Plautu«, 
that  "a  man  cannot  sup  and  blow  at  the  same  time." 


25 


rations  alone  considered  must  leave  this  case 
doubtful."  But  what  is  there  either  in  the  nature 
of  the  case,  the  scope  and  connection  of  the  pas- 
sage, the  circumstances  or  history  of  the  writer, 
or  the  analogy  of  faith,  that  encourages  such 
an  interpretation?  Is  it,  that  David  was  not 
the  offspring  of  lawful  and  honorable  wedlock '? 
No.  Is  it  that  there  is  any  recorded  reproach 
against  his  parents  in  the  sacred  history?  No.  Is 
it  that  it  is  the  special  duty  of  men  to  confess  the 
sins  of  their  mothers  1  Is  it  that  in  their  most  hum- 
ble and  penetential  frames,  good  men  are  prone  to 
bewail  the  sins  of  their  parents  as  well  as  their 
own.*  Or  is  it  that  infants  are  incapable  of  sin- 
ning!  We  have  known  that  error  had  made 
rapid  strides  in  the  land  ;  but  we  had  not  thought 
it  had  come  to  this. 

The  Bible  inquires.  Who  can  bring  a  clean 
tiling  out  of  an  andean  ?  Uliat  is  mem  that  he 
should  be  clean,  and  he  that  is  horn  of  a  woman 
that  he  should  be  righteous  7  Arminians  and 
Pelagians  have  said,  that  the  subject  referred  to 
in  these  passages  is  the  natural  frailty  of  man, 
and  not  his  moral  impurity.  But  with  what  evi- 
dence of  the  truth,  common  sense  and  piety  must 
judge.     Turn  to  the  14th  and  15th  chapters  of 

*  I  have  had  access  to  the  first  Enghsh  Commentaries,  and  not  a  few  of  them, 
who  all  agree  in  referring  this  text  to  the  sin  of  the  Psalmist  himself.  Rosen- 
muller,  a  neologist,  says  of  this  5th  verse,  "Haeret  in  naiura  tola  viea,  jam 
unde  ab  ertu  meo,  et  innnata  mihi  pravitas.  Dicit  itague  vates,  se  tunc  etiam, 
cum  a  viatre  conciperetur,  uteioque  gestaretur,  peccato  fuisse  uifeclum."  We 
may  not  agree  with  RosenmuUer  as  to  the  use  he  makes  of  this  text,  but  tins 
alters  not  his  interpretation. 

P 


26 

Job,  and  read  theiri,  and  then  say,  vvhetlier  the 
writers  are  not  speaking  of  man's  moral  impu- 
rity. And  if  they  are  so,  then  are  they  speaking 
of  man's  original  corrupt  nature;  and  then  do 
they  prove  that  every  man  who  is  born  into  the 
world  is  a  sinner.*  It  is  true  that  the  persons 
who  utter  these  sentiments  are  Eliphaz  and  Job ; 
and  though  throughout  the  most  of  this  book 
they  are  engaged  in  a  discussion  in  relation  to 
the  government  of  God,  in  which  each  expresses 
different  and  opposite  sentiments,  and  therefore 
both  cannot  be  true ;  yet  do  both  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  discussion  adopt  this  undisputed 
truth,  the  moral  corruption  of  men  from  their 
birth.  This  therefore  was  the  received  doctrine 
of  Job  and  his  three  friends,  who  were  the  most 
venerable  men,  and  men  most  distinguished  for 
their  piety  in  the  world.  And  here  let  it  be 
remarked,  that  the  writer  of  this  book  of  Job 
lived  within  a  few  generations  of  the  flood.  And 
it  is  not  probable,  if  the  sentiment  that  infants 
are  innocent  had  been  handed  down  by  tradition 
from  the  days  of  Adam  and  Noah,  and  had  gene- 
rally prevailed  with  the  early  patriarchs,  that  the 
doctrine  of  Native  Depravity  would  have  been  so 
clearly  recognised  by  all  parties  in  this  discussion. 
The   Bible   declares  that   The    wicked   are 

*Rosenmuller  does  indeed  consider  the  former  of  these  passages,  as  an  appeal 
ad  misericordiam,  but  he  at  the  same  time  recognises  in  them,  the  doctrine 
in  question.  "  Quid,  inquit,  hominem  punis,  ob  pcccata  ad  quas  suapte  natura 
est  proclivis,  et  quae  ex  vitiosa  indole  naturte  suae,  quuin  immundus  sit  origine, 
vitarenon  potest?" 


27 


ESTRANGED  FROM  THE  WOMB  :  THEY  GO  ASTRAY  AS 

SOON  AS  THEY  BE  BORN,  SPEAKING  LIES.  Ill  re- 
marking on  this  text,  the  author  to  whom  we 
have  before  referred  says,  'When  this  latter 
affirmation,  in  its  literal  sense,  can  be  made  out, 
then  may  we  take  the  former  part  of  the  verse 
in  its  literal  sense."*  No  doubt  the  latter  affirma- 
tion is  figurative ;  and  what  does  it  denote  if  not 
that  all  men  naturally  possess  a  deceitful  charac- 
ter ?  But  where  is  the  necessity  of  considering 
the  former  part  of  the  verse  in  a  figurative  sense? 
If  the  passage  will  bear  a  literal  sense,  we  ought 
to  understand  it  literally.  If  the  nature  of  the 
subject,  or  the  scope  of  the  passage,  or  other 
texts  of  Scripture  require  a  figurative  meaning, 
we  are  justified  in  giving  it  such  a  meaning,  but 
not  without.  The  writer  just  referred  to  says, 
"  It  is  a  good  rule  of  interpretation,  never  to  de- 
part from  the  usual  sense  of  words,  unless  there 
be  an  imperious  reason  for  it."  There  is  no  such 
necessity  in  the  present  instance.  No  comment 
can  add  to  the  declaration,  "  They  are  estranged 
from  the  icomb,  they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  be 
ftom."t 

The  Bible  informs  us,  that  The  imagination 
of  mail's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth.  The 
Hebrew  word  rendered  youth,  will  justify  the 
rendering,  childhood  and  infancy.     It  designates 

♦  Vid.  Stuart's  Excursus. 

t  Rosenmuller  in  expounding  this  text  says,  "Abalienati  sunt  impii  ab  omni 
piptatis  et  jiistitisB  cTU'a  inde  ah  utero,  male  agunt  inde  a  natiritafe  sua ; 
nialitia  lisest  innata." 


28 


the  whole  period  of  early  life,  from  infancy  to 
mature  manhood ;  and  therefore  may  be  applied 
to  any  portion  of  this  period  as  the  context  may 
require.*  In  this  passage  it  seems  plainly  to 
mark  the  earliest  period.  So  true  is  it  that  man 
thinks,  devises  and  loves  wickedness  from  his 
birth. 

The  Bible  tells  me  that  That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh.  The  bearing  of  this  text  on 
this  subject  has  been  strenuously  denied.  It 
must  be  admitted  that  the  original  word  here 
translated  fleshy  when  taken  by  itself,  is  used  in 
a  great  variety  of  senses  in  the  Scriptures.!  The 
word  often  means  onen,  and  frequently  with  the 

♦  The  word  here  used  Dniyj  designates  the  whole  period  of  early  life,  from 
infancy  to  mature  manhood ;  and  therefore  may  be  applied  to  any  portion  of 
this  period.  Sometimes  one  portion,  sometimes  another,  and  at  others  the 
whole  is  included.  It  is  a  derivative  from  Ijrj  which  is  used  for  an  infant, 
a  lad,  a  young  man ;  as  in  Exod.  2:6.  "  Behold  the  babe  wept."  Heb. 
n33  ijjj-nin  Judges  13  :  5.  "The  child  shall  be  called  a  Nazarite /rom  the 
womb"-— Heb.  "lyjn  And  again  in  the  7th  verse.  So  in  1  Sam.  1 :  24,  "And 
when  she  had  weaned  him  she  took  him  up — and  the  child  was  young."  The 
Heb.  here  is  peculiar  1j;J~njf  Jn  the  child,  a  child,  i.  e.  small  or  young,  which 
seems  to  show  that  young  child  was  the  original  and  proper  nieanmg  of  the 
term. 

In  other  cases  it  is  used  for  boys,  youth,  and  even  men.  Of  Joseph,  Gen. 
41  :  12,  and  Solomon  when  king,  1  Kmgs  3  :  7. 

The  abstract,  CDniyj  has  therefore  as  the  context  requires,  either  the  sense  of 
childhood  and  infancy,  or  of  youth.  Gen.  46 :  34.  "  Thy  servants  have  been 
shepherds  from  our  childhood." 

Such  expressions,  however,  as  "  wife  of  thy  youth"—"  guide  of  my  youth"— 
"  reproach  of  my  youth,"  &c.  are  very  common ;  and  in  all  these,  the  same 
word  Dmj»JI  is  employed.  It  depends,  therefore,  on  the  context,  what  particular 
portion  of  early  life  is  included  by  it.  In  the  passage  to  which  we  have 
referred,  we  have  said  it  seems  clearly  to  mark  the  earliest  period.  Rosen- 
muller  renders  it,  pueritia,  and  explains  the  sense  thus,  Itaque  novis  quotidie 
opus  forct  diluvus  et  plagift  gcneralibvs  ad  eos  perdendos,  qviim  per- 
petua  sit  eorwfti  et  innata  malignitas. 

tSee  BretscluK'idor  \\w\  Snhleusncr. 


29 

accessory  idea  of  frailty,  and  often  with  that  of 
moral  depravity,  and  hence  for  that  depravity 
itself.  The  question  is,  which  of  the  various 
senses  of  the  word  best  suits  this  passage  1  Does 
it  here  mean  man  considered  merely  as  an  animal 
— flesh  and  blood — or  man  considered  as  morally 
corrupt"?  We  have  no  hesitation  in  affirming  it 
means  the  latter.  1.  Because  in  all  doctrinal 
passages  of  this  kind,  this  is  the  common  meaning 
of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament.  2,  And 
principally,  because  this  sense  alone  suits  the 
context.  The  declaration,  That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh,  is  not  introduced  in  answer  to 
the  question  of  Nicodemus,  in  the  4th  verse, 
JIoio  can  a  man  he  horn  ichen  he  is  old,  &c.  as 
though  it  stated  that  flesh  and  hlood  cannot 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  question  is 
answered  in  the  5th  verse,  in  which  Christ  says, 
"  Verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God ;"  and  in  which  he  tells  Nico- 
demus that  it  is  not  a  natural  birth  that  he  means, 
but  a  spiritual.  And  then  the  ground  of  the 
necessity  of  this  great  moral  change  is  given  in 
this  6th  verse.  And  what  is  it  ?  Not  that  man 
is  flesh  and  hlood  ;  but  that  all  born  of  the  flesh 
are  carnal,  that  is,  corrupt.  And  since  this  is  the 
case,  the  Saviour  argues,  as  all  born  of  the  flesh 
are  flesh,  or  carnal,  and  all  born  of  the  Spirit 
are  spirit,  or  spiritual ;  therefore,  Marvel  tiot  that 
T said  unto  thee,  ye  must  he  horn  again.     Surely 


30 


if  moral  depravity  is  the  ground  of  the  necessity 
of  the  new  birth,  this  6tli  verse,  vs^hich  states 
that  ground,  must  express  tliat  idea.  Besides, 
in  the  third  place,  the  opposition  between  the 
words  flesh  and  spiiit  requires  this  sense.  Those 
born  of  the  Spirit  are  spiritual,  not  in  a  sense 
opposite  to  flesh  and  blood,  but  in  a  moral  sense. 
If  the  word  Spirit  here  expresses  moral  charac- 
ter, so  must  the  word  flesh.  Whoever  therefore 
is  from  the  stock  of  fallen  Adam,  is  a  fallen 
sinner.  The  plant  is  of  the  nature  of  the  seed. 
Like  begets  like.  Whatever  be  the  moral  cha- 
racter of  men  in  their  unrenewed  state,  such  is 
here  declared  to  be  the  character  of  their 
offspring. 

And  the  Bible  tells  me,  that.  All  men  are  by 
nature  the  children  of  wrath.  The  word  tran- 
slated nature  means  by  birth.  We  icho  are  Jews 
by  NATURE,  and  not  sinners  of  the  Gentiles.  So 
the  Gentiles  are  spoken  of  as  Gentiles  by  nature, 
that  is,  they  were  born  Gentiles.  In  the  same 
sense  essentially  is  the  word  used  in  the  following 
passage.  "  For  if  God  spared  not  the  natural 
branches,"  &c.  Our  English  word  physical  is 
derived  from  the  Greek  word  here  translated 
nature.  Sometimes  the  word  means  the  nature 
of  a  thing — its  natural  constitution,  or  innate 
disposition.*  The  examples  of  this  sense  of  the 
word,  are  very  numerous  in  the  New  Testament 

*  Schleiisner  deliiies  it,   ortus,  origo,  generatio,  natritas.     Bretschneider 
defines  it,  natum  rei  alinipis,  qiinin  liabel  ox  nntvitate — indoles  naluralis. 


31 

and  elsewhere.*  Paul  clearly  refers  the  fact  that 
all  are  children  of  wrath  to  what  he  calls  nature.'\ 
Let  any  man  read  the  context,  and  he  will  have 
no  doubt  as  to  the  huport  of  this  passage.  If 
Paul  had  been  speaking  of  a  man  who  was  born 
a  prince ;  if  he  had  been  speaking  of  men  who 
were  born  Jews  or  Gentiles;  he  would  have  used 
this  language,  and  did  use  it.  But  he  is  speaking 
of  the  moral,  depraved  character  of  men — men 
oiicc  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins — men  who  in 
lime  past  walked  according  to  the  course  of  this 
world — men  who  once  fulfilled  the  desires  of  the 
flesh  and  of  the  mind ;  and  he  says  of  such  men, 
they  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath  even  as 
others.  Men  are  here  declared  to  be  children  of 
wrath  from  their  birth,  as  really  as  they  are  else- 
where declared,  to  be  Jews  by  birth,  or  Gentiles 
by  birth.  Could  the  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity 
be  more  forcibly  expressed,  than  by  such  a  decla- 
ration in  such  a  connection  as  this '? 

We  have  dwelt  longer  on  the  scriptural  argu- 
ment than  will  interest  many  of  our  readers,  and 

"  Vid.  Tlie  Lexicons. 

t  TSKva  ^vasi  ipyvs-  The  precise  form  of  the  dative  here  may  be  matter  of 
doubt.  It  may  express  the  ground  or  reason,  and  then  the  passage  would 
mean,  on  account  of  our  native  character  or  disposition,  we  are  children  of 
wrath.  Vid.  Romans,  11 :  20.  They  were  broken  off  on  account  of  unbelief. 
See  too,  Romans  5 :  17.  But  it  may  express  the  respect  in  which  we  are 
children  of  wrath.  Tlien  it  would  read,  As  to  our  native  character  or  disposi- 
tion, we  are  children  of  wrath.  Or  it  may  express  the  cause;  and  then  our 
being  deserving  of  wrath,  would  be  a  reference  to  <pvais  as  the  source  or 
cause.  It  matters  little  which  method  is  preferred,  though  either  of  the  former 
seems  better  suited  to  the  context  than  the  last.  All,  however,  express  the 
idea,  that  the  fact  of  our  being  tlie  children  of  wrath  is  to  be  referred,  not  to 
our  circumstances,  but  to  our  selfish  and  einfiil  nature. 


32 

have  omitted  all  those  passages  of  doubtful  im- 
port, which  have  generally  been  relied  on  in 
proof  of  the  doctrine,  because  they  do  not  appear 
to  refer  to  the  subject.  Nearly  every  text  in  the 
Bible  that  speaks  of  the  moral  character  of 
infants,  seems,  at  first  view,  to  stand  in  the 
way  of  those  who  deny  the  doctrine;  and  all 
their  ingenuity  is  exerted  to  explain  away  its 
obvious  meaning.  No  doubt  it  will  be  said  that 
some  of  the  preceding  passages  are  to  be  re- 
ceived in  a  figurative  and  not  in  a  literal  sense. 
And  this  is  true.  So  is  a  vast  proportion  of  the 
passages  which  describe  the  sinful  character  of 
adults  highly  figurative,  as  will  at  once  be  re- 
membered by  every  attentive  reader  of  the  Bible 
But  though  they  are  figurative,  have  they  not  a 
meaning?  What  is  the  spirit  of  these  divine 
instructions  ?  Do  they  not  convey  a  vivid  and 
strong  description  of  Native  Depravity  ?  How 
could  this  truth  have  been  exhibited  in  a  light 
better  fitted  to  arrest  the  attention,  and  make  a 
deep  impression  on  the  mind  ?  Could  this  doc- 
trine have  been  set  forth  more  fully  or  more  im- 
pressively than  by  saying  that  all  have  sinned — 
that  men  are  born  in  sin — that  a  clean  thing 
cannot  come  out  of  an  unclean — that  he  that 
is  born  of  a  woman  cannot  be  righteous — that 
they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born — that 
that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh — that  by 
nature  all  are  children  of  wrath — and  that  by 
the  oftence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men 


33 

to  condemnation  ?  If  this  is  not  a  declaration  of 
Native  Depravity,  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  lan- 
guage to  express  the  thought.  Can  any  man 
who  regards  the  decisions  of  the  Bible,  and  sub- 
mits to  it  as  the  only  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith, 
with  these  passages  before  him,  still  adhere  to 
the  doctrine  that  infants  are  innocent  ?  If  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  do 
not  teach  the  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity,  I 
am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  doctrine  they  do 
teach.* 

One  thing  is  painfully  observable  in  the  view 
which  is  presented  of  these  and  similar  passa- 
ges, by  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  in  question. 
It  is  that  their  exposition  of  them  symbolizes 
with  the  exposition  which  has  always  been 
given  by  writers  of  the  Pelagian,  Arminian  and 
Unitarian  Schools.  Turnbull,  Taylor,  Whitby, 
Priestly,  Belsham  and  Ware,  have  no  contro- 
versy with  the  theology  of  New-Haven,  or  the 
Biblical  Professor  at  Andover,  so  far  as  it  re- 
spects the  instructions  of  God's  Holy  Word,  in 


♦  Dr.  Stuart  remarks,  "The  decisions  of  the  Bible  relative  to  the  point  in 
question,  do  seem  to  me  after  long  and  painful  examination,  to  be  plainly  and 
explicitly  against  the  doctrine.  Such  are  John  3:6.  1  Cor.  2 :  14,  15. 
Romans  3  :  9—24.  5 :  6—10.  Eph.  2  :  1,  3,  5.  Rom.  5  :  12—19.  Gen.  6  : 
5.  8:  21.  Job.  15:  14—16.  Prov.  22:  15,  and  others  of  a  similar  tenor; 
all  of  which  prove  t?iat  the  natural,  unregenerate  state  of  man,  is  a  state  of 
alienation  from  God,  and  one  which  needs  the  regenerating  and  sanctifying 
influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  no  more."  I  presume  the  great  body  of 
Calvinists  in  this  and  other  countries  will  think  this  is  sufficiently  positive. 
Here  the  question  is  at  once  decided  ex  cathedra,  and  by  the  old  and  some- 
times very  respectable  argument,  Ipse  Dixit.  I  confess  I  see  no  force  in 
such  reasoning. 

E 


34 

relation  to  the  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity. 
We  have  deeply  regretted  this,  and  trembled  for 
the  ark  of  God,  exposed  as  it  is  to  this  unhal- 
lowed temerity.  But  it  is  well,  perhaps,  that  some 
gentlemen  are  throwing  off  the  mask,  and  avow- 
ing their  Pelagian  and  Arminian  sentiments. 

There  are  several  texts  which  are  supposed  to 
teach  the  opposite  doctrine,  and  distinctly  to 
affirm  the  innocence  of  infants.  But  is  it  so  ?  I 
affirm  confidently  there  is  not  one  in  all  the  Bible. 
There  are  several  passages  referred  to  by  several 
late  authors,*  which  it  becomes  us  to  examine. 
It  is  said  that  the  Scriptures  affirm.  Where  there 
is  no  Imo,  there  is  no  transgressio7i.  And  the  in- 
ference is,  that  since  infants  are  not  under  law, 
they  are  not  sinners.  But  infants  are  under  law. 
It  is  acknowledged  by  our  opposers  that  they 
have  a  conscience ;  and  what  is  conscience,  but  a 
rule  of  action  ?  There  is  no  spot  in  the  universe 
where  there  is  a  soul  and  a  conscience,  where 
"  there  is  no  law." 

It  is  said  that  passages  of  the  following  import, 
militate  against  the  doctrine,  lo  him  that  knoio- 
eth  to  do  good,  and  doeth  it  not,  to  him  it  is  sin. 
If  ye  ivere  blind,  ye  should  have  no  sin.  The 
servant  that  knew  his  Lord^s  ivill,  and  did  it  not, 
shall  he  beaten  ivith  many  stripes. — If  there  is  any 
force  in  this  objection,  it  is,  that  infants  do  not 
know  enough  to  sin.  They  cannot  recognise  any 
rule  of  action,  and  therefore  it  is  impossible  for 

*  Professors  Stuart  and  Pitch,  and  Christian  Spectator. 


35 


them  to  violate  any  rule  of  action.  In  reply  to 
this  objection  we  are  ready  to  grant,  that  if  the 
soul  of  an  infant  has  no  conscience,  no  moral 
sense,  he  has  no  accountability,  and  we  might 
add,  that  he  has  no  soul.  But  if  infants  have  a 
conscience  and  a  moral  sense,  which  we  think  is 
necessarily  implied  in  the  existence  of  a  soul, 
then  they  may  know  enough  to  sin.*  Their 
moral  perceptions  are  faint  and  limited,  and  it  is 
this  which  makes  their  sin  so  small  compared 
with  the  sin  of  riper  years  and  more  matured 
knowledge ;  but  it  is  this  which  makes  it  real, 
however  small.  Besides,  we  may  not  overlook 
nor  depreciate  the  matter  of  fact  in  every  adult, 
not  only  in  Christian,  but  heathen  lands,  all  over 
the  world,  that  sin  does  exist  to  a  great  and 
awful  extent,  where  men  are  not  conscious,  at 
the  time  of  committing  it,  that  it  is  sin.  Adults 
may  be,  and  in  fact  are,  sinners,  and  great  sin- 
ners, without  being  conscious  of  it,  at  the  time 
they  commit  sin.  Who  does  not  believe,  that 
when  he  comes  to  stand  before  the  bar  of  God, 
and  when  the  strong  and  steady  light  of  eternity 
shines  upon  his  heart  and  life,  that  he  will  see 
his  sins  in  a  number  and  enormity  in  which  he 
never  saw  them  before  7    Who  can  take  a  retro- 

*In  commenting  on  Romans  4  :  15,  Professor  Stuart  says,  "Admitting  the 
trutli  of  the  Apostle's  representation,  it  follows  that  those  who  have  no  know- 
ledge of  ia-w,  that  is,  no  moral  sense  of  any  moral  precept,  cannot  be  trans- 
gressors." He  also  says,  "  Plainly,  men  may  be  moral,  and  free  agents,  before 
they  can  read  the  Scriptures."  The  inference  is,  that  children  may  be  sinners 
befor<i  they  can  read  the  Scriptures !  It  is  not  without  some  semblance  of 
reason,  that  the  Christian  Spectator  intimates,  that  Professor  Stuart  has  gone 
even  beyond  the  New-Haven  School  in  his  notions  of  Native  Depravity. 


36 

spect  of  his  past  life  without  now  seeing  that  he 
has  sinned  in  a  thousand  instances,  in  which,  at 
the  time  he  committed  the  wickedness,  he  had 
no  impression  at  all  that  he  was  doing  wrong  7 
Paul  sinned  when  he  persecuted  the  church  of 
God;  and  yet  he  was  not  conscious  of  it  at  the 
time,  even  with  the  Bible  in  his  hand,  and  at  the 
feet  of  Gamaliel ;  but,  verily  thought  he  ought  to 
do  many  things  contrary  to  the  name  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  But  he  was  fully  and  deeply  con- 
vinced of  this  sin,  after  he  became  a  pious  man  ; 
his  conscience  condemned  him  for  it,  and  he 
never  ad\^erts  to  it  without  shame.  In  his  unre- 
generate  state  he  had  also  many  emotions  of 
mind,  and  vehement  passions,  of  the  wicked- 
ness of  which,  he  was  not  conscious  at  the  time. 
And  hence  he  says,  I  had  not  known  these  desires 
to  be  sin,  unless  the  laio  had  said,  thou  shalt  not 
covet.  It  is  true  that  sin  cannot  exist  where  there 
is  no  law  ;  but  it  is  not  true  that  sin  may  not  and 
does  not  exist  where  there  is  no  knowledge  of 
the  law ;  except  in  those  cases  where  the  sin  is 
created  by  the  mere  enactment  of  law  itself,  and 
is  malum  pi'ohibiturn,  and  not  malum  in  se.  The 
Pagan  world  are  now  living  in  the  indulgence  of 
iniquity,  of  no  small  portion  of  which  they  are 
utterly  unconscious,  but  which,  when  the  light 
of  the  Gospel  is  lifted  upon  them,  will  fill 
them  with  self-abasement.  There  is  a  way  that 
seemeth  right  to  a  man,  but  the  end  thereof  are 
the  ways  of  death.  Hence  it  is  that  sinners  under 
conviction  see  a  thousand  things  in  themselves 


37 

to  be  exceedingly  sinful,  which  they  never 
saw  to  be  so  before,  and  which  they  were  pre- 
vented from  seeing  by  their  own  stupidity  and 
blindness.  Hence,  the  Scriptures  represent  it  as 
a  part  of  the  office  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
convince  men  of  sin ;  not  of  what  was  iiot  sinful 
before,  but  of  what  was  sinful,  though  the  stupid 
and  guilty  offender  was  not  at  the  time  conscious 
of  sinning.  And  hence  the  people  of  God  in 
every  age,  have  felt  the  need  of  supplicating  this 
divine  influence,  and  often  praying,  Make  me  to 
knoiu  my  transgression  and  my  sin.  There  is  no 
more  difficulty,  therefore,  in  relation  to  this 
subject  in  the  case  of  infants,  than  in  that  of 
adults.  Thou  say  est  I  am  rich,  and  increased  in 
goods,  and  have  need  of  nothing,  and  knowest  not 
that  thou  art  poor  and  miserable,  and  blind,  and 
naked.  If  adults  or  infants  are  not  conscious  of 
sinning,  it  is  because  they  have  a  wrong  state  of 
heart  or  moral  feeling.  Their  understanding  is 
darkened,  being  alienated  from  the  life  of  God, 
through  the  ignorance  that  is  in  them,  because  of 
the  blindness  of  their  hearts.  Sin  has  a  blinding 
influence  on  the  intellectual  faculties,  and  bribes, 
stupifies,  and  paralyzes  the  conscience.  Unto 
the  pure,  all  things  are  pare ;  but  unto  them  that 
are  defied  and  unbelieving,  is  nothing  pure ;  but 
even  their  mind  and  cmiscience  is  defiled.  A  sinful 
heart  may  prevent  even  an  infant  mind  from 
attending  to  the  difference  between  right  and 
wrong.  The  light  may  shine  upon  the  dark- 
ness, and  the  darkness  may  not  comprehend  it. 


38 

While,  therefore,  it  is  true  that  the  servant  lolddt 
knew  his  Lord^s  icill,  and  prepared  not  himself, 
neither  did  according  to  his  ivill,  sliall  he  beaten 
ivith  many  stripes ;  it  is  also  true,  that  he  that 
KNEW  NOT,  and  did  commit  things  worthy  of 
STRIPES,  shall  be  beaten  icith  few  stripes.  Here 
then  we  have  the  plain  and  important  import  of 
the  text  on  which  this  specious  objection  rests. 
If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto  them,  they 
had  not  had  sin,  but  noio  they  have  no  cloak  for 
their  sin.  You  only  have  I  known,  of  all  the 
families  of  the  earth :  therefore  icill  I  pu7iish  you 
for  your  iniquities.  They  that  sin  icithout  laic, 
shall  also  perish  icithout  law.  God  holds  every 
creature  accountable,  young  and  old,  in  propor- 
tion to  the  light  he  has  abused.  It  is  only  of 
them  to  whom  much  is  given,  that  much  will  be 
required. 

But  great  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  following 
passage.  For  the  children  being  not  yet  bom, 
neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil.  A  late 
writer*  refers  to  this  passage,  no  less  than  seven 

*  Professor  Stuart.  There  are  very  many  things  in  Professor  Stuart's  Com- 
mentary on  the  Romans,  which  are  invaluable.  And  there  are  many  errors, 
palpable  errors,  which  I  have  no  doubt  will  in  due  time  be  exposed  and  refuted. 
The  discussions  in  this  book  are  frank,  fair  and  honorable,  and  in  keeping  with 
the  author's  high  character.  Very  unlike  the  discussions  of  the  New-Haven 
School,  they  are  also  kind  and  intelligible.  But  on  the  doctrine  of  Native 
Depravity,  they  are  exceedingly  unguarded,  and  frequently  contradictory. 
They  are  enforced  by  bold  assertion,  and  nothing  else.  In  commenting  on 
this  9th  of  Romans  and  11th,  he  says,  "It  contains  a  very  important  declara- 
tion m  respect  to  its  bearing  on  some  of  the  controverted  questions  about  here- 
ditary depravity,  or  original  sin.  The  children  were  in  the  womb  of  Rebecca, 
and  had  arrived  ut  the  age  of  some  five  months.  That  they  possessed  -powers 
or/acuZ<ics  of  sinning,  even  in  the  womb,  is  undoubtedly  trw:\  Will  the 
Professor  frovc  this? 


39 

times  within  the  compass  of  a  few  pages,  as  de- 
cisive proof  against  our  doctrine.  It  is  indeed 
marvellous  logic,  to  infer  that  children  neither 
do  good  or  evil  after  they  are  born,  because  they 
did  neither  good  nor  evil  before  they  were  born  ! 
Because  we  affirm  that  infants  are  capable  of 
sinning,  and  do  sin  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  do 
we  therefore  say,  that  they  are  either  capable  of 
sinning,  or  do  sin  before  they  are  born  ?  Reason- 
ing that  is  applicable  to  infants  before  birth,  may 
not  be  applicable  to  them  after  birth.  Who  affirms 
that  Jacob  or  Esau  did  good  or  evil  before  birth? 
Who  says  that  any  sin  before  birth  7  Who  even 
ventures  to  affirm,  that  the  foetal  existence  has  a 
soul?  There  is  no  occasion  of  triumph  in  this 
very  plain  text,  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
subject. 

There  is  also  a  passage  in  the  book  of  Jonah 
which  is  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine. 
And  should  not  F  spare  Nineveh^  that  great  city^ 
icherein  are  more  than  six-score  thousand  persons^ 
that  cannot  discern  between  their  right  hand  and 
their  left;  and  also  much  cattle!  Here  let  it  be 
distinctly  remarked,  that  if  this  passage  militates 
against  the  doctrine,  it  must  be  because  the  six- 
score  thousand  persons  referred  to  were  infants, 
and  the  city  was  spared  on  their  account.  But 
neither  of  these  facts  can  be  proved.  For  first,  the 
passage  does  not  affirm  that  the  persons  referred 
to  were  infants.  It  says  there  were  more  than 
six-score  thousand  pe7Sons,  that  could  not  discern 


40 

between  their  right  hand  and  their  left.  It  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  if  infants  had  been 
especially  in  the  writer's  eye,  he  would  have 
definitely  described  them ;  and  to  have  done  so, 
would  have  accorded  with  the  usual  precision  of 
the  Scriptures  on  this  subject.  2.  It  is  incredi- 
ble, that  there  were  so  many  infants  in  the  city 
of  Nineveh.  There  is  no  account  of  the  extent 
and  population  of  that  city,  which  justifies  the 
belief  that  it  contained  a  hundred  and  twenty 
thousand  infants,  either  a  few  days,  or  even  a 
few  months  old.  The  population  of  ancient  cities 
can  be  by  no  means  determined  by  their  extent, 
because,  more  usually,  one-half,  or  three-fourths  of 
them  were  laid  out  in  squares  and  public  gardens. 
The  city  was  but  three  days' journey,  or,  say  some 
sixty  or  eighty  miles  through  the  principal  streets 
of  it.  3.  The  book  of  Jonah  shows  that  the 
city  of  Nineveh  was  spared  on  the  ground  of  her 
repentance ;  which  shows  that  she  was  not  spared 
for  the  sake  of  infants.  After  Jonah  had  pre- 
dicted the  overthrow  of  the  city,  the  people 
believed  God^  and  proclaimed  a  fast^  and  put  on 
sackcloth^  from  the  greatest  of  them  to  the  least 
of  them.  And  we  are  told  that  God  saw  their 
works,  that  they  tmmed  from  their  evil  way ;  and 
God  repented  of  the  evil  that  he  had  said  he  loould 
do  unto  them ;  and  he  did  it  not.  Here  the  reason 
why  God  spared  the  city  is  explicitly  stated.  It 
was  their  visible  7epenta7ice.  But  the  objector 
will  ask,  Does  not  God  himself  say  to  Jonah, 


41 

Sltmild  not  I  spare  Nineveh^  that  great  citify 
loherein  there  are  more  than  six-scoi'e  thousand 
persons  that  cannot  discern  between  their  right 
hand  and  their  left  hand  ?  He  does  say  so ;  but 
he  also  says,  that  the  reason  why  Nineveh  was 
spared,  was  her  repentance.  Nor  does  he  any 
where  say,  that  the  reason  why  she  was  spared 
was,  the  multitude  of  her  infants.  Nor  yet  was 
this  expostulation  with  Jonah  without  an  em- 
phatic import.  There  were  special  reasons  why 
God  should  say  this  to  Jonah^  because  he  was 
angry  for  the  gourd.  Thou  hast  had  pnty  on  the 
gou7'd  for  ivhich  thou  hast  not  labored,  neither 
madest  it  groio ;  ivhich  came  up  in  a  night  and 
jyerished  in  a  night:  and  should  not  I  sptare 
JVineveh,  that  great  city,  wherein  are  more  than 
six-score  thousand  persons,  that  cannot  discern 
between  their  i^ight  hand  and  their  left  hand,  and 
also  much  cattle  7  This  remark  was  argumentum 
ad  hominem  to  Jonah,  while  it  does  not  at  all 
countervail  the  fact  that  the  city  was  spared  on 
account  of  their  repentance.  Besides,  4.  It  is 
contrary  to  the  dealings  of  God's  providence,  to 
spare  any  people  on  account  of  infants.  There 
is  probably  not  a  single  example  in  the  Bible  to 
justify  this  interpretation,  while  there  are  many 
examples  to  the  contrary.  Infants  did  not  stay 
the  waters  of  the  flood;  nor  arrest  the  flames  of 
Sodom;  nor  avert  the  ruin  of  Egypt,  or  Canaan, 
or  Babylon,  or  Jerusalem.  There  were  more 
than  six-score  thousand  infants  in  the  old  world, 


42 

and  yet  God  did  not  spare.  Nor  can  any  exam- 
pie  be  found,  of  infants  having  averted  or  arrested 
the  calamities  coming  upon  a  people.  Nor,  5. 
Will  it  follow,  even  if  infants  are  here  described, 
that  they  cannot  sin  before  they  can  distinguish 
between  their  right  hand  and  their  left.  Many 
are  conscious  that  they  were  sinners,  before  they 
could  tell  their  right  hand  from  their  left.  Chil- 
dren cannot  usually  do  this  until  they  are  several 
years  of  age.  And  6.  This  is  a  proverbial 
expression,  denoting  great  ignorance  in  adults, 
and  would  be  inapplicable  to  infants.  But  let  us 
suppose  the  six-score  thousand  persons  referred 
to  were  infants.  If  there  be  any  force  in  the 
objection  of  our  opponents,  it  is  found  in  the 
consideration,  that  it  would  have  been  unjust  not 
to  have  spared  the  city  for  their  sakes.  Why 
then  did  God  threaten  to  destroy  it?  Was 
the  threatening  unjust  7  Besides,  this  objection 
comes  with  an  ill  grace  from  those  who  maintain 
that  the  suffering  and  death  of  infants  are  not 
penal. 

There  is  likewise  a  declaration  in  Deuterono- 
my 1 :  39,  which  seems  at  first  view,  to  contra- 
vene the  doctrine  we  are  endeavoring  to  esta- 
blish. It  reads  thus:  Moreover  your  little  ones 
which  ye  said  should  he  a  prey^  and  your  children 
ivhich  in  that  day  had  no  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil,  they  shall  go  in  thither,  and  unto  them  will  I 
give  the  land,  and  they  shall  jiossess  it.  Now  we 
are  bold  to  say,  this  declaration  has  nothing  to 


43 

do  with  infants,  except  as  they  are  included  in 
the  number  of  those  who  did  not  rebel  against 
God  and  against  Moses,  and  did  not  refuse  to  go 
up  and  possess  the  land,  on  the  return  of  the 
twelve  spies.  In  less  than  a  year  after  the 
children  of  Israel  left  Mount  Horeb,  they  had 
travelled  through  the  great  and  terrible  wilder- 
ness, and  came  very  near  the  borders  of  Canaan. 
So  near  were  they,  that  Moses  sent  twelve  men 
to  search  out  the  land,  and  to  bring  back  word 
again  by  what  route  they  should  go  up,  and  what 
cities  they  should  first  attack.  Ten  of  the  twelve 
spies  brought  an  evil  report  of  the  land,  and 
discouraged  the  hearts  of  the  people.  Joshua 
and  Caleb  alone  gave  a  true  and  favorable  re- 
presentation, and  urged  the  people  at  once  to  go 
up  and  possess  the  land.  But  the  people  rebelled. 
All  the  people  from  timnty  years  old  and  upioardj 
rebelled  and  would  not  go  up.  The  consequence 
was,  God  told  them  that  they  should  not  go  up, 
nor  should  one  of  that  entire  generation  who 
were  capable  of  bearing  arms,  when  they  came 
out  of  Egypt,  except  Caleb  and  Joshua,  ever  set 
their  foot  upon  that  fair  inheritance.  We  have 
a  definite  account  of  this  whole  transaction  in 
the  14th  chapter  of  the  book  of  Numbers,  which 
when  compared  with  the  brief  recapitulation  in 
the  first  of  Deuteronomy,  gives  the  true  sense  of 
the  contested  passage.  Say  unto  them,  says  God 
to  Moses  and  Aaron,  you7'  carcasses  shall  fall  in 
this  icildcrness;  and  all  that  were  numbered  of 


44 

you,  according  to  yourivhole  7iimiher,  prom  twenty 
YEARS  OLD  AND  UPWARDS,  lohicJi  Jiave  7nu7'mured 
against  me,  doubtless  ye  shall  not  come  into  the 
land.  But  your  little  ones^  lohich  ye  said  should 
he  a  prey,  them  loill  I  bring  in,  and  they  shall 
know  the  land  which  ye  have  despised.  Their 
childre7i  did  not  participate  in  this  rebellion. — - 
Quoad  hoc,  they  had  no  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil.  They  were  minors;  and  notwithstanding 
the  rebellion  of  their  fathers,  they  went  in  and 
possessed  the  land.  This  passage,  therefore,  ob- 
viously includes  all  those  who  were  under  twenty 
years  of  age,  at  the  time  of  the  general  rebellion 
of  that  people,  on  the  borders  of  the  promised 
land, 

A  number  of  passages  of  the  following  import, 
strange  as  it  may  seem,  are  referred  to,  as  assert- 
ing the  doctrine  of  native  innocence.  Except  ye 
be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  On  any  other 
ground  than  that  children  are  innocent,  it  is  ask- 
ed, '^  how  could  they  be  made  the  objects  of  such 
a  comparison  as  they  here  are  ?"*  To  this  I  reply, 
either  the  children  referred  to,  were  innocent, 
and  had  no  moral  character;  or  they  had  a 
moral  character,  aiiS  it  was  holy;  or,  they  had 
a  moral  character,  and  it  was  unholy  and  sinful. 
Was  it  the  last  ?     This  will  not  be  affirmed  by 

♦  Vid.  Stuart's  Excursus. 


45 

the  objector.  If  this  is  the  meaning,  then  the 
import  of  the  passage  is,  Except  ye  be  converted, 
and  become  as  little  children,  who  go  astray  as 
S0071  as  they  are  bo7'7i,  sjjeaking  lies^  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Was  it  that 
they  had  a  moral  character,  which  was  holy  1 
This,  the  opposers  of  Native  Depravity  will  not 
affirm — nay,  this  they  even  deny.  Was  it  then 
that  they  were  merely  innocent,  and  had  no 
moral  character  ?  Is  it  so,  then,  that  all  our  Lord 
meant  to  say,  was.  Except  ye  be  converted,  and 
become  like  these  little  children,  icho  are  destitute 
of  original  righteousness,  and  have  no  moral  cha- 
racter, ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  ?  Is  this  all  that  is  necessary  to  prepare 
men  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven? — that 
they  should  have  no  moral  character  7  And  how 
does  this  accord  with  the  concession  that  these 
very  children  need  to  he  horn  again?  If  these 
children  needed  to  be  born  again,  we  might  ask 
in  our  turn,  "  how  could  they  be  made  the  objects 
of  such  a  comparison  as  they  here  are  T  The 
real  facts  in  relation  to  these  texts  have  been 
overlooked.  These  little  children  were  not  m- 
fants.  The  original  Greek  word  here  translated 
little  children,  as  every  Greek  scholar  knows,  is 
not  the  word  generally  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  denote  infants;  but  the  word  that  is 
generally  used  to  denote  a  child  that  is  capable 
of  instruction,  in  distinction  from  a  child  that  is 


46 


carried  and  nursed  by  its  mother.*  It  is  observ- 
able too,  that  it  is  a  child  that  Jesus  called^  and 
set  171  the  midst  of  the  disciples.  It  was  a  child 
that  could  stand  or  walk.  The  children  here  re- 
ferred to,  therefore,  possessed  a  moral  character; 
and  if  they  possessed  a  moral  character,  were,  it 
is  conceded,  sinful  and  depraved ;  so  that  they 
could  not  have  been  traits  of  moral  character 
which  were  the  objects  of  this  comparison,  but 
traits  of  natural  character.  When  it  is  asked, 
therefore,  how  they  could  "  be  made  the  objects 
of  such  a  comparison?"  we  answer,  for  the  same 
reason  that  lambs  and  doves  could  be.  Little 
children,  as  well  as  lambs  and  doves,  possess 
many  natural  properties,  which  beautifully  re- 
present the  unaspiring,  docile,  simple,  guileless 
spirit,  which  the  early  disciples  needed  to  pos- 
sess in  greater  measure,  and  which  is  so  neces- 
sary a  prerequisite  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
But  I  have  wearied  my  readers  too  long  with 

*  The  Greek  word  for  infants  is  Bp£0oj,  which  Bretschneider  says,  means 
qui  aliter  a  matre.  It  means  sometimes,  fostus,  or  embryo — infans  recens 
Tiatus,  quatenus  a  matre  adhuc  alitur.  Schleusner  says  it  is,  qui  adhiic  in 
Tnatris  utcro,  as  in  Luke  1 :  41,  and  also  infans  recens  natus,  as  in  Luke 
2 :  12.  This  is  the  general,  though  not  the  uniform  meaning.  The  original 
word  translated  children,  is  Traiiwv.  Bretschneider  says  it  signifies  puendus, 
puella—a.  little  boy— a  little  girl— homo  utriusquc  sexus  nondum  aduUus— 
and  this  is  indicated  from  its  being  the  diminutive  of  Trais—puer—puella — 
totam  hominis  eetatam,  a  nativitate  usque  ad  annos  viriles.  Schleusner,  how- 
ever, gives  us  a  secondary  meaning — infans  adhuc  lactens.  Such,  too,  is  the 
colloquial  use  of  the  word  ttoiSiov  in  modern  Greek.  I  once  enquired  of  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Temple,  who  had  spent  some  time  in  the  Greek  Islands,  the  precise 
meaning  of  the  word,  and  he  told  me  it  meant  a  child  that  runs  about  and 
goes  to  school.    And  the  etymology  of  the  word  shows  it  to  be  so. 


47 


this  critical  examination  of  texts.  I  do  not  know 
of  any  other  text  on  which  any  considerable 
emphasis  can  be  laid  in  this  discussion  that  is 
opposed  to  the  doctrine  we  have  advocated. 
The  Bible  cannot  contradict  itself.  If  there  be 
any  other  passage,  therefore,  I  am  well  satisfied, 
that  it  either  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject, 
or  presents  rather  a  popular  and  qualified  view 
of  the  moral  character  of  children,  relatively  and 
comparatively  considered,  than  a  didactic  denial 
of  Native  Depravity. 

Again :  With  the  Bible  in  my  hand,  I  deduce 
also  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  Native  De- 
pravity, from  the  rights  of  circumcision  and 
baptism. 

Circumcision  and  baptism  are  both  represented 
in  the  Bible  as  appendages  of  the  covenant  of 
grace.  They  distinctly  recognise  the  subjects 
of  them  as  standing  in  need  of  mercy ^  and  there- 
fore sinners.  Of  all  the  truths  they  express, 
none  are  more  significant  than  the  lost  condition 
of  infants,  and  the  divinely  instituted  method  of 
their  recovery  by  the  blood  of  the  great  atone- 
ment, and  the  regenerating  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Who  can  discover  any  propriety  in  the  san- 
guinary rite  of  circumcision,  performed  on  a  child 
eight  days  old,  unless  he  admits  that  the  infant 
is  a  subject  of  the  divine  government,  a  fallen 
sinner,  and  in  perishing  need  of  salvation  by 
grace  7     This  certainly  is  the  view  the  Scriptures 


48 

give  of  this  painful  ordinance.  It  was  a  seal  of 
God's  gracious  covenant  vv^ith  Abraham  and  his 
seed;  a  significant  representation  of  that  great 
vN^ork  wrought  on  the  heart  by  the  immediate 
power  of  God,  and  which  the  Scriptures  deno- 
minate circiimcision  ivithout  hands,  and  a  visible 
pledge  for  the  transmission  of  the  privileges  and 
blessings  of  the  great  salvation,  from  generation 
to  generation,  down  to  the  close  of  time.  It  was 
a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith — not  only 
of  the  faith  of  the  parent  for  his  own  soul,  but 
of  his  hope  in  God  for  his  children,  that  right- 
eousness might  be  imputed  to  them  also.  The 
promise  involved  a  pledge  on  God's  part,  that  on 
condition  of  faith  and  fidelity  on  the  part  of  Abra- 
ham in  respect  to  his  children,  they  should 
become  subjects  of  grace,  and  heirs  of  the  bless- 
ings of  the  covenant.  And  in  contemplating 
this  merciful  arrangement,  who  has  not  admired 
the  infinite  grace  and  wisdom  of  God  in  this 
covenant,  which  he  established  so  early  with  his 
children.  But  what  an  unmeaning  ceremony,  if 
young  children  have  no  moral  character ;  if  they 
are  no  more  the  subjects  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment than  "  young  animals  ;"  if  their  hearts  do 
not  need  to  be  circumcised  to  love  the  Lord  their 
God;  if  they  have  never  sinned,  and  need  no 
interest  in  the  covenant  of  grace ! 

Of  still  more  significant  import,  if  possible,  is 
the  rite  of  infant  baptism.  With  our  brethren 
w^ho  deny  the  validity  of  infant  baptism,  we  know 


49 

this  remark  has  no  weight ;  but  with  those  who 
admit  it  as  the  ordinance  of  God,  it  is  entitled  to 
serious  consideration.  What  propriety  is  there 
in  the  ordinance  of  baptism  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  the  God  of  our 
redemption,  if  the  subject  of  it  is  innocent^  and 
bears  no  relation  as  a  sinner  to  the  method 
of  redeeming  mercy  ?  Christian  parents,  in  offer- 
ing their  children  to  God  in  baptism,  present 
them  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as 
the  God  of  their  redemjMon.  They  do  not  bring 
them  to  the  baptismal  font  as  innocent  creatures, 
as  those  who  have  no  inoral  character;  but 
as  those  who  need  to  be  icashed  and  sancti- 
Jied,  and  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
JesuSj  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.  The 
Scriptures  unequivocally  represent  Christian 
baptism  as  implying  the  moral  pollution  of  the 
subject.  The  impressive  emblem  of  water  implies 
this.  The  frequent  comparison  between  baptiz- 
ing ivith  water  and  baptizing  ivith  the  Holy  Ghost 
implies  this.  The  fact  that  baptism,  as  well  as 
circumcision,  is  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith,  implies  this.  And  several  plain  and  posi- 
tive declarations  affirm  it.  Annanias  said  to 
Saul,  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy 
SINS.  Peter  also  expresses  the  same  thought, 
when  he  says.  The  like  figure  whereunto  baptism 
doth  also  now  save  us,  not  the  j^i^tting  away  the 
filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science toward  God.    Now  if  infants  are  not  sin- 


50 


ners,  why  were  they  circumcised  under  the  Old, 
and  why  are  they  baptized  under  the  New  dis- 
pensation"? Why  wash  them,  if  they  are  not 
filthy  7  Do  you  say,  it  is  because  they  loill  be 
sinners  ?  That  is  not  certain,  if  the  doctrine  of 
Native  Depravity  be  not  true.  They  may  not 
live  long  enough  to  be  sinners.  And  if  they  die 
before  they  sin,  they  do  not  need  to  be  baptized, 
I  would  abandon  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism, 
if  I  did  not  hold  the  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity. 
And  it  is  well  known  that  this  doctrine  is  loosely 
taught ;  has  already  become  a  subject  of  trivial 
moment ;  and  is  gradually  falling  into  disuetude, 
in  the  churches  where  the  doctrine  of  Native 
Depravity  has  been  for  several  years  exploded.* 
How  can  a  minister  baptize  a  child,  if  he  disbe- 
lieves this  doctrine  7    If  he  disbelieves  or  doubts 


*  The  Congregationalists  (says  the  Christian  Secretary)  have  constituted  a 
new  church  in  New-Haven,  which  they  denominate  "  A  Missionary  Church." 
They  have  published  a  constitution  of  twelve  articles,  and  fifteen  articles  of 
faith ;  of  the  latter,  one  article  reads  as  follows :  Art.  xii.  "  That  the  Sacra- 
ments of  the  Christian  church,  are  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  that 
candidates  for  admission  to  the  church,  ought  to  have  liberty  of  conscience,  as 
to  the  mode  and  subjects  of  Baptism." 

A  writer  who  styles  himself  an  Edwardeariy  and  the  author  of  letters 
on  the  present  state  and  probable  results  of  Theological  Speculations  in  Con- 
necticut, has  the  following  paragraph:  "Another  practical  eifect  of  the  new 
system  is  to  bring  into  disrepute  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel.  It  is  credibly 
reported,  and  1  give  it  to  you  as  a  report,  that  Dr.  Taylor  has  said.  If  a  man 
who  had  been  baptized,  became  dissatisfied  with  the  manner  and  views  with 
which  it  had  been  done,  and  should  request  to  be  re-baptized,  he  would  again 
baptize  him,  and  if  he  wished  to  be  circumcised,  he  would  circumcise  him. 
And  by  one,  at  least,  of  Dr.  Taylor's  devoted  associates,  this  doctrine,  as  it 
respects  baptism,  has  been  reduced  to  practice.  Thus  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
is  virtually  nullified,  or  reduced  to  the  level  of  common  means,  in  direct  con- 
travention of  its  divine  institution." 


51 

the  necessity  of  the  child's  regeneration,  how  can 
he  jyray  at  the  baptismal  altar  for  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  renew  and  sanctify  the 
child  1  For  myself,  if  I  adopted  these  views  of 
Native  Depravity,  I  should  be  at  a  loss  to  know 
how  to  pray,  at  the  baptismal  service,  unless  I 
should  be  satisfied  solemnly  to  implore  grace  for 
the  child  in  due  time,  and  as  soon  as  he  might 
need  it !  If  I  mistake  not,  it  would  be  difficult 
for  the  advocates  of  native  innocence  to  utter 
such  a  prayer  as  is  befitting  their  sentiments. 
It  would  run  somewhat  in  the  following  form : 
O  Lord  God !  the  mighty  Creator  and  gr'ocious 
Redeemer !  who  keepest  covenant  and  mercy  to- 
ward them  that  fear  thee  from  generation  to 
generation.  We  praise  and  bless  thee  that  thou 
hast  given  this  child  existence  in  a  Christian  land, 
and  under  the  smile  of  Chi^istian  ordinances.  We 
thank  thee  that  thou  hast  formed  it  a  godly  child, 
"  in  thine  own  image,^^  and  "  destitute  of  a  moral 
character J^  We  bless  thee,  that,  though  belonging 
to  an  apostate  race,  yet  the  sin  of  our  first  father 
has  not  injured  it;  for  "  his  sinnhig  harmed  no  one 
hut  himself. ^^  This  child,  now  free  from  sin,  and 
without  amj  moral  depravity  of  nature,  and  pos- 
sessing spotless  innocence,  ice  come  to  consecrate 
to  thee.  We  bring  it  to  this  baptismal  fou7itain, 
not  that  it  may  be  id  ashed  and  sanctified,  because 
it  is  clean.  We  bring  it  to  the  atoning  Saviour, 
not  that  it  may  be  pardoned,  because  it  is  not  as 


52 

yet  under  the  curse  of  thy  holy  laic.  But  should  it 
please  thee  in  thy  righteous  providence  to  continue 
it  in  this  guilty  icorld  long  enough  to  become 
morally  jjolluted^  our  prayer  is  that  it  may  then, 
and  in  due  time  be  cleansed  from  all  its  im- 
purity!— Who  ever  heard  of  such  a  prayer? 
Would  it  not  be  an  anomaly  in  the  worship 
of  God's  house?  Is  it  not  a  burlesque  upon 
the  very  name  of  prayer?  Does  it  not  out- 
rage every  reverential,  and  Christian  feeling? 
Would  our  opponents  dare  offer  it  ?  And  yet  it 
is  in  perfect  keeping  with  their  doctrine. 

I  remark,  again:  When  I  look  into  the  Bible, 
I  also  learn,  that  if  infants  are  not  sinners,  they 
cannot  be  saved  through  the  atonement  of  Jesus 
Christ.  The  sentiment  has  often  been  imputed 
to  the  advocates  of  Native  Depravity,  that  they 
do  not  believe  in  the  salvation  of  infants.  But 
nothing  is  Tnore  false  or  unjust^  than  this  impu- 
tation. That  the  grace  of  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ,  rescues  all  infants  from  perdition,  I  do 
not  deny,  but  fondly  hope ;  that  it  rescues  untold 
millions,  I  have  not  a  doubt.  Out  of  the  mouth 
of  babes  and  sucklings  hast  thou  perfected  praise. 
Children  are  the  heritage  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
fruit  of  the  womb  is  his  reward.  But  while  we 
say  this,  we  also  say,  that  God  is  not  bound  in 
justice  to  save  them,  and  that  whether  he  saves 
the  whole,  or  a  part,  he  saves  them  as  a  matter 
of  mere  mercy,  through  the  blood  of  his  Son. 


53 

There  are  two  ways,  and  only  two,  in  which 
the  creatures  of  God,  either  in  this  or  any  other 
world,  can  be  saved.  One  is  by  their  personal 
innocence  and  rectitude;  so  that  they  do  not 
deserve  the  divine  displeasure,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  condemned  justly;  the  other  is  by 
being  pardoned  and  rescued  from  a  perdition 
they  deserve,  freely  by  the  grace  of  God,  that 
is  in  Christ  Jesus.  These  two  methods  of 
salvation  are  not  only  entirely  distinct,  but 
directly  opposite.  Grace  cannot  save,  where 
justice  cannot  condemn ;  and  on  the  other  hand, 
justice  cannot  condemn,  where  grace  is  not 
necessary  to  save.  Now  the  simple  question  is, 
do  the  Scriptures  rest  the  salvation  of  infants 
upon  their  own  native  innocence,  or  upon  the 
mere  mercy  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ?  If 
upon  their  own  native  innocence,  then  all  who 
die  in  infancy  have  no  part  in  the  great  redemp- 
tion ;  never  illustrate  the  wisdom,  and  riches, 
and  glory  of  redeeming  mercy;  never  have 
washed  their  garments  and  made  them  white  in 
the  blood  of  the  Lamb ;  can  never  lift  up  their 
voices,  in  the  present  world,  with  the  song,  Unto 
him  that  loved  us,  and  icashed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  oivn  blood;  nor  stand  with  those  in  the 
world  to  come,  who  say.  Thou  hast  redeemed 
us  unto  God  by  thy  blood,  from  every  kindred, 
and  nation,  and  tongue,  under  heaven.  But  if 
they  are  saved  by  Christ  and  through  Christ, 
then  are  they  sinners :   for,  if  one  died  for  all. 


54 

then  icere  all  dead — the  Son  of  Man  came  to  seek 
and  to  save  that  which  was  lost;  Chfist  hath 
once  suffered,  the  just  for  the  unjust.  If  they 
are  saved  by  Christ  and  through  Christ,  then 
are  they  rescued  from  a  deserved  destruction, 
and  in  perfected  jjraises  ascribe  the  glory  to  God 
and  the  Lamb.  Whatever  else  Christ  may  do 
for  them,  he  does  not  cleanse  them ;  he  does  not 
pardon  them ;  he  does  not  redeem  them  by  the 
blood  of  Ids  atonement,  if  they  are  not  sinners. 
They  are  under  no  obligations  to  him  for  redeem- 
ing them  from  the  curse  of  the  lav^,  if  they  are 
not  sinners ;  for  if  they  owe  any  thing  to  atoning 
blood,  they  are  wanting  when  weighed  in  the 
even  scales  of  justice !  It  is  an  imposition  to 
say,  as  a  late  writer  has  said,  that  "  Christ  is  the 
Saviour  of  infants,"  unless  they  are  saved  by 
him  from  perdition,  and  a  perdition  that  is 
deserved.  And  that  this  is  not  the  meaning  of 
the  representation,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that 
it  "  seems  doubtful"  to  him  whether  "  infants  are 
sinners  in  such  a  sense  as  to  be  worthy  of  the 
second  death."* 

But  it  is  asked,  how  can  an  infant  be  saved, 
if  it  cannot  repent  and  believe  the  gospel?  I 
answer,  just  as  easily  as  a  pious  Pagan  can  be 
saved,  who  knows  nothing  of  Christ.  God  may 
renew  and  sanctify  the  heart  of  an  unenlightened 
Pagan ;  and  through  the  blood  of  his  Son,  wash 
away  his  sins,  and  fit  him  for  heaven.     I  have 

♦  Professor  Stuart. 


55 

seen  a  multitude  of  infants  die ;  and  it  has  been 
a  delightful  thought  to  my  mind,  that  the  Father 
of  spirits  has  not  bound  himself  by  the  laws  of 
moral  suasion,  but  has  immediate  access  to  the 
infantile  mind;  is  able  to  give  it  a  new  heart 
and  a  new  spirit;  and  does,  to  the  glory  of  his 
own  grace,  shed  abroad  in  an  infant's  bosom,  that 
holy  love,  that  sweet  spirit  of  heaven,  which  is 
the  germ  of  every  grace,  and  which  will  bear 
its  fruits  under  a  serene  and  purer  sky. 

But  again :— I  learn  from  the  Bible,  that  if  in- 
fants are  not  sinners,  they  do  not  need  regenera- 
tion. If  they  are  innocent,  why  should  they  sus- 
tain any  such  radical  transformation  of  charac- 
ter, as  the  Scriptures  affirm  to  be  indispensably 
necessary  in  every  human  being  ?  Our  blessed 
Lord  told  Nicodemus,  that  that  lohic/i  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh.  Whatever  truth  this  declaration 
may  convey  beside  this,  this  is  evidently  conveyed 
by  it,  that  every  child  of  Adam  must  be  born 
again.  It  is  not  enough  that  he  should  be  once 
born  in  order  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  He  must  be  born  again.  Old  or 
young,  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot 
see  the  kingdom  of  God.  Not  an  individual  of 
the  human  family,  of  any  age,  can  be  received 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  without  this  renova- 
tion of  moral  character. 

The  reason  why  adults  must  be  born  again, 
is,  that  their  moral  disposition  is  supremely 
selfish  and  sinful,  and  must  be  changed,  or  they 


56 


are  lost.  We  enquire  then,  What  is  there  in  the 
character  of  an  infant,  that  renders  it  necessary 
for  him  to  be  born  again  ?  You  say  he  has  no 
character.  How  then  can  his  character  be 
changed?  Regeneration  is  a  change  of  character 
from  sin  to  holiness.  How  can  an  infant  be  the 
subject  of  this  change,  who  has  never  had  a  cha- 
racter that  is  sinful  ?  Regeneration  is  described 
as  passing  from  death  unto  life;  if  infants  are  not 
in  a  state  of  spiritu^al  death,  how  can  they  pass 
from  death  unto  life  7  If  you  are  even  in  doubt 
whether  an  infant  has  a  moral  character,  how  do 
you  know  that  he  needs  to  be  regenerated]  Be- 
sides, if  infants  are  innocent,  and  have  no  moral 
character,  then  those  who  die  in  infancy  are 
either  annihilated,  or  lost,  or  created  holy 
subsequently  to  their  original  creation.  Will 
our  opponents  tell  us  which?  If,  dying  in 
infancy,  they  ever  become  holy,  then  must  it 
be,  not  by  a  spiritual  renovation  of  character, 
but  literally  by  a  new  creatiori.  Regenerated  they 
cannot  be.  If  we  mistake  not,  a  mind  unper- 
verted  by  system  would  say,  the  reason  why  an 
infant  must  be  born  again  will  be  found  in  the 
reason  why  an  adult  must  be  born  again.  It  has 
a  sinful  heart.  Its  moral  dispositions  are  unholy. 
That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh :  anti-spirit- 
ual and  sinful,  and  partakes  of  that  carnal  mind 
which  is  enmity  against  God.  At  his  first  birth, 
man  is  sinful  and  depraved;  and  it  is  only  by  his 
second,  or  spiritual  birth,  that  he  becomes  holy. 


57 


Again :  The  Bible  informs  us  that  suffering 

AND  NATURAL  DEATH  IN  THEIR  EFFECTS  UPON  THE 
RACE  OF  Adam,  are  the  CONSEaUENCE  OF  SIN.      Of 

the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  human  race,  the 
Scriptures  say —  We  are  consumed  by  thine  an- 
gei^ — We  pass  away  in  thy  wrath — They  bear 
their  iniquity  and  die.  Worthy  of  death — 
Guilty  of  death — The  sting  of  death  is  sin — - 
The  last  enemy  that  shall  be  desti^oyed  is  death — 
By  one  man,  sin  entered  into  the  icorld,  and  death 
BY  SIN,  and  so  death  hath  jmssed  wpon  all  men^ 
FOR  that  all  HAVE  sinned.  Each  and  all  of  these 
passages  prove,  that,  as  it  respects  the  w^hole 
human  race,  natural  death  is  jjenal,  and  strongly 
expressive  of  the  divine  displeasure  against  sin, 
and  against  men  as  sinners.  And  with  these 
declarations  accord  the  plain  decisions  of  con- 
science. Men  are  so  constituted,  that  they  trace 
suifering  to  crune.  Vengeance  suffereth  not  to 
live.  The  passage  from  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans  is  so  significant,  that  I  will  repeat  it. 
By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  icorld,  and 
DEATH  BY  SIN,  and  SO  DEATH  hcith  jjasscd  upon  all 
men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.  The  word  death 
here  means  either  temporal  death,  spiritual 
death,  eternal  death,  or  all  misery.  If  it  means 
spiritual  death,  the  point  is  proved  that  all  men 
are  born  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.  If  it  means 
eternal  death,  then  it  is  also  proved ;  for  none 
are  condemned  to  eternal  death,  but  those  who 
are  sinners.     If  it  means  temporal  death,  then 


58 

does  temporal  death  prove  their  sinfulness :  for 
the  text  asserts,  that,  death  hath  passed  u2)on 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.  If  it  means 
all  suffering,  this  includes  all  the  three;  and 
therefore  proves  that  sin  in  the  human  race  is 
co-extensive  with  suffering.  Let  the  import  of 
this  text  be  considered.  By  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  ivorld,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death 
hath  2J(f'S8ed  wpon  all  men,  for  that  all  have 
SINNED.  Death  is  here  declared  to  be  a  proof 
of  sin.  Hovs^  a  proof  of  sin  ?  If  there  be  any- 
meaning  in  this  declaration,  infants  suffer  and 
die,  either  for  their  own  sin,  or  for  Adam's  sin, 
or  for  neither.  If  they  do  not  suffer  and  die 
either  for  their  own  sin,  or  for  Adam's  sin,  then 
so  far  as  this  text  is  concerned,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  they  suffer  and  die  for  the  sin  of  any 
one.  And  what  is  the  inference,  but  that  the  de- 
claration, death  by  sin,  is  not  true  ?  It  is  not  true, 
that  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have 
sinned.  Death  does  not  pass  upon  all  men,  be- 
cause all  have  sinned.  Excluding  infants  and 
their  death,  then,  what  is  the  amount  of  the  Apos- 
tle's assertion  ?  Not  that  death  is  by  sin,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course.  Not  that  death  proves  the  existence 
of  sin  in  any  one.  But  it  is  simply  this — Death 
by  sin,  if  you  live  long  enough  to  become  a  sinner ; 
but  if  not,  then  you  shall  die  without  it !  This 
is  all  this  great  Apostle  could  mean,  if  the  reason- 
ing of  our  opposers  is  true.  Besides,  if  death  is 
not  by  sin  in  infants,  when  is  it  a  proof  of  sin  ? 


59 


At  what  age  are  we  warranted  to  conclude  that 
death  is  by  sin  7  We  see  no  way  of  avoiding 
difficulties  otherwise  never  to  be  removed,  unless 
we  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  wherever  death 
passes  upon  men,  there  is  the  evidence  that  the 
subject  has  sinned. 

And  now,  what  are  the  facts?  No  small  por- 
tion of  the  human  race  die  in  the  cradle.  Multi- 
tudes upon  multitudes  are  ushered  into  the  world, 
to  weep,  and  sigh,  and  moan  out  a  miserable  ex- 
istence here,  and  then  pass  to  eternity.  Suffering 
and  death  in  some  of  their  most  merciless  and 
frightful  forms,  are  inflicted  on  infants.  God  did 
not  spare  infants,  when,  in  the  expression  of  his 
exhausted  forbearance  and  displeasure  against 
the  sins  of  the  antediluvian  world,  he  deluged  it  by 
a  flood.  He  did  not  spare  infants,  when  he  burnt 
up  Sodom  and  Gomorrah ;  though  in  answer  to  the 
prayer  of  Abraham,  he  engaged  not  to  destroy  the 
innocent  with  the  guilty.  He  did  not  spare  the 
infants  of  Egypt,  when  he  swept  the  land  by 
the  ten  plagues.  He  did  not  spare  the  children 
of  Achan,  nor  of  Canaan,  nor  of  Babylon. 
When  he  commanded  Moses  to  destroy  the 
Midianites,  and  Saul  to  destroy  the  Amalekites, 
he  expressly  directed  them  to  cut  oflT  children 
with  their  parents.  Of  the  children  of  Edom, 
he  says,  Happy  is  he  that  taketh  thy  little  ones, 
and  clasheth  them  against  the  stojies.  When  the 
destroying  angel  was  commanded  to  go  through 
Jerusalem,  and  set  a  mark  upon  the  foreheads  of 


60 

the  men  that  sighed  for  her  abominations,  this 
was  his  solemn  commission,  Go  through  the  city 
and  smite.  Let  not  your  eye  spare^  neither  have 
ye  pity.  Slay  utterly  old  and  young,  both  maids 
and  LITTLE  CHILDREN.  But  coiue  not  near  any 
man  upon  whom  is  the  mark.  Why  did  he  not 
put  the  mark  upon  infants  7 

If  then  infants  die  at  every  stage  of  their 
existence  after  birth,  are  they  not  sinners? 
Who  ever  perished^  being  innocent  7  or  where 
were  the  righteous  cut  off?  If  the  doctrine  of 
Native  Depravity  be  not  true,  the  answer  to  this 
question  must  be,  all  the  infants  in  the  old  world 
that  were  destroyed  by  the  flood,  perished,  being 
innocent.  All  the  infants  that  were  destroyed 
by  fire  in  Sodom,  and  by  plague  and  famine  in 
Jerusalem,  perished,  being  innocent.  Thousands 
and  millions  of  infants  in  every  age  of  the  world 
perished,  being  innocent. 

But  it  is  said,  that  "  multitudes  of  infants  perish 
before  birth."*  And  what  has  this  to  do  with 
the  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity  ?  In  the  pre- 
sent discussion,  we  are  speaking  only  of  those 
who  are  born.  And  in  describing  the  character 
of  infants,  the  Bible  speaks  only  of  those  who 
are  born^  and  not  of  the  untimely  birth  of  a 
icoman  that  never  sees  the  light  of  the  smi.  The 
doctrine  of  Native  Depravity  respects  natives ! 

It  has  also  been  objected,  that  it  cannot  be 
shown  that  the  suiferings  of  infants  are  other 

*  Stuart's  Excursn?. 


61 


than  disciplinary*  Disciplinary?  How  disci- 
plinary, if  infants  are  not  sinners'?  Does  God 
chastise  for  nothing  ?  What  discipline  do  they 
need,  if  they  are  not  sinners  1  And  what  benefit 
can  discipline  be  to  them,  if  they  are  not  capable 
of  possessing  a  moral  character  ?  How  can 
they  understand  it  7  How  can  they  profit  by 
it?  If  the  suffering  and  death  of  infants  be 
disciplinary^  it  proves  that  they  are  moral  beings, 
and  subjects  of  law  and  moral  government,  and 
therefore  liave  a  moral  character,  which  is  the 
point  to  be  established.  It  must  first  be  con- 
ceded that  infants  are  sinners,  before  it  can  be 
proved  that  their  sufferings  are  disciplinary. 
And  is  it  no  proof  that  they  are  sinners,  that 
they  require  such  discipline  ?  Will  a  righteous 
God  send  the  flood,  the  fire,  the  pestilence  and 
the  sword,  and  drown,  burn,  and  smite  them 
with  fury,  and  for  the  salutary  purposes  of  chas- 
tisement and  discipline,  if  they  are  innocent  1 

It  has  also  been  said  that  infants  suffer  and 
die  through  the  operation  of  general  laics,  and 
that  God  cannot  rescue  them  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  his  universal  providence.! 
Is  it  so  ?  Is  God  so  ignorant  and  impotent  as 
this?  Let  me  turn  the  attention  of  this  objector 
to  the  following  passage,  in  the  second  epistle  of 
Peter.  For  if  God  spared  not  the  Angels  that 
SINNED,  hut  cast  them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered 
them  in  chains  of  darkness,  to  he  reserved  unto 

♦  Dr.  Stuart,      t  Vid.  Christian  Spectator,  Review  of  Havvey  and  Taylor. 


62 

judgment ;  and  spared  not  the  old  icorid,  but  de- 
livered Noah,  the  eighth  person,  a  preacher  of 
righteousness,  bringing  in  a  flood  upon  the  icorld 
of  the  ungodly ;  and  turning  the  cities  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  into  ashes,  condemning  them  icith 
an  ovci^throic,  making  them  an  ensample  u7ito 
those  icho  should  after  live  ungodly;  and  deliver- 
ed JUST  Lot,  vexed  icith  the  filthy  conversation  of 
the  wicked :  the  Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the 
godly  out  of  temptation,  and  to  reserve  the  unjust 
unto  the  day  of  judgme^it  to  be  'punished.  Does 
this  look  as  though  God  could  not  make  any  dis- 
crimination between  the  innocent  and  the  guilty, 
without  disturbing  the  general  laws  of  his  provi- 
dence 7  If  he  could  discriminate  in  heaven  be- 
tween the  angels  that  fell,  and  the  unfallen ;  if 
he  could  overthrow  Sodom,  and  deliver  Lot, 
though  by  the  mission  of  an  angel ;  if  he  could 
destroy  the  old  world,  and  deliver  Noah,  though 
by  an  ark ;  if  his  providence  could  contrive  to 
save  all  these ;  then  it  will  follow,  that  the  Lord 
knoweth  how  to  rescue  the  innocent.  He  is  at  no 
loss  to  do  it,  and  yet  preserve  the  integrity  of  his 
government.  Peter's  conclusion  from  these  facts 
is  this : — The  Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the 
godly  out  of  temptation,  and  to  reserve  the  un- 
just unto  the  day  of  judgment  to  be  punished. 
A  much  more  rational  conclusion  we  think,  than 
the  reasoning  involved  in  the  objection.  Besides, 
the  death  of  infants  is  itself  a  general  law. 
There  are  more  that  die  in  infancy,  than  in  any 


63 

other  period  of  equal  extent.  The  bills  of  mor- 
tality and  annual  reports  of  interments  in  the 
city  of  New-York,  for  the  years  1830,  1831,  and 
1832,  furnish  the  following  facts.  In  the  year, 
1830,  the  total  number  of  deaths  commencing  on 
the  first  of  January,  and  ending  on  the  thirty- 
first  of  December,  was  five  thousand  five  hundred 
and  thirty-seven;  and  of  this  number,  fifteen 
hundred  and  forty-seven  were  of  the  age  of  one 
year  and  under.  In  the  year  1831,  the  total 
number  of  deaths  was  six  thousand  three  hun- 
dred and  sixty-three ;  and  of  this  number,  seven- 
teen hundred  and  fifty-seven  were  of  the  age  of 
one  year  and  under.  In  1832,  the  total  number 
of  deaths  was  ten  thousand  three  hundred  and 
fifty-nine ;  and  of  this  number,  nineteen  hundred 
and  twenty-two  were  of  the  age  of  one  year  and 
under.  Of  the  twenty-two  thousand  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty-nine  who  died  during  these  three 
years,  of  all  ages,  five  thousand  two  hundred  and 
twenty-six  were  young  infants,  of  the  age  of  one 
year  and  under — more  than  one-fourth  part  of 
the  whole — nearly  three  times  as  many  as  died 
between  one  and  two  years  of  age — nearly  five 
times  as  many  as  died  between  ten  and  twenty 
— and  during  all  but  the  last  year,  nearly  three 
times  as  many  as  died  between  two  and  five,  and 
eight  times  as  many  as  died  between  five  and 
ten,  and  ten  and  twenty  years  of  age.  There  is 
no  general  law  of  God's  providence,  concerning 


64 


the  death  of  mankind,  so  prominent  as  this,  in 
all  ages  and  all  countries. 

But  the  objector  enquires,  What  can  we  say 
of  the  multiplied  and  aggravated  sufferings  of 
the  brute  creation  7*  The  Scriptures  no  where 
affirm  that  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  brute 
creation  are  penal,  except  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  ground  is  cursed  for  man's  sake.  But  they 
hold  a  different  language  in  relation  to  the  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  human  beings.  We  meet  this 
objection  therefore  in  the  first  place  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Bible,  and  refer  the  objector,  as  we 
have  done  already,  to  what  the  Scriptures  say  on 
this  subject.  But  more  than  this.  If  this  enquiry 
means  any  thing,  this  must  be  the  meaning. 
Since  animals  suffer  and  die  without  being  sin- 
ners, therefore  infants  may  suffer  and  die  without 
being  sinners.  If  then  this  remark  is  true,  it 
amounts  to  nothing  more  nor  less  than  this — that 
suffering  and  death  is  no  ji^oof  of  sin.  So  reasons 
the  infidel,  and  with  the  same  force  and  conclu- 
siveness. You  cannot  reason  from  the  sufferings 
of  the  brute  creation,  without  giving  your  argu- 
ment too  broad  a  sweep.  For  if  animals  and 
infants  and  adults  may  suffer  and  die  without 
being  sinners,  and  death  may  reign  over  such  a 
multitude  without  being  a  proof  of  sin;  what 
evidence  have  we,  from  their  sufferings  and 
death,  that  men  are  sinners  at  all?     In  view, 

*  Dr.  Stuart. 


65 

therefore,  of  all  the  suffering  and  pain,  sorrow 
and  death  which  come  upon  millions  and  mil- 
lions of  the  human  race  who  die  in  infancy,  we 
call  upon  our  opponents,  if  this  is  no  proof  of  sin, 
to  vindicate  the  divine  government  in  these 
affecting  dispensations.  If  all  these  sufferings 
come  upon  the  human  race,  and  are  yet  no  proof 
of  sin,  then  have  the  advocates  of  this  scheme 
adopted  the  principle,  that  God  may  inflict  suf- 
fering and  death  to  any  extent  iq^on  human  be- 
ings, and  it  can  jicvei^  be  made  a  iwoof  of  sin  in  a 
single  instance.  We  have  then  a  principle  in  the 
divine  government,  which  admits  that  God  may 
hereafter  inflict  sufferings  and  death  to  any  pos- 
sible extent,  in  the  eternal  world,  and  still  it  can 
never  be  made  a  proof  of  sin  in  a  single  instance. 
A  late  writer  remarks,  '^I  cannot  help  the  feel- 
ing, that  there  is  an  extravagance  in  the  assertion 
so  often  made,  and  so  strenuously  defended  in 
relation  to  sufferings  in  the  present  world.  It 
has  often  been  asserted  that  the  fact  that  all  the 
human  race  are  sufferers,  proves  that  all  without 
exception  are  sinners  in  such  a  sense  as  to  have 
incurred  the  full  penalty  of  the  divine  law."* 
What  does  this  author  mean?  and  what  will 
he  say  next?  Does  he  mean  that  infants 
are  sinners  in  such  a  sense  that  temporal 
death  pays  the  debt?  If  so,  then  are  they 
saved  on  the  ground  of  justice.      Or,  does  he 

*  Stuarts  Excursus,  p.  550. 
I 


66 

mean  that  men  may  be  sinners  in  any  sense 
without  incurring  the  full  penalty  of  the  divine 
law  7  It  is  surprising  to  see  the  feelings  of  oppo- 
sition to  the  idea,  that  the  sufferings  of  infants 
are  penal.  Men  are  quiet,  if  you  concede  that 
infants  may  endure  all  this,  being  perfectly  inno- 
cent. If  they  are  innocent,  you  may  hang  them, 
and  burn  them,  and  drown  them ;  but  if  they  are 
guilty — ah !  this  is  a  different  matter.  You  can- 
not endure  it  if  they  are  guilty !  There  seems  to 
be  something  in  the  moral  elements  of  some  men, 
something  which  "sets  itself  spontaneously  in 
array"  against  the  representation  that  infants 
should  suffer  thus  because  they  are  guilty.  No, 
it  must  not  be  named ;  it  cannot  be  endured  if  it 
is  the  fruit  of  sin.  But  why  is  this  ?  Is  it  that 
they  would  exculpate  man,  and  inculpate  the 
divine  being?  Apply  this  principle  to  human 
governments.  Apply  it  to  parental  governments. 
What  would  you  think  of  a  prince,  who  should 
burn  and  destroy  his  subjects  after  this  sort,  if 
they  were  not  guilty  ?  What  would  you  think 
of  a  father,  who  should  thus  conduct  himself  to- 
wards his  children?  I  know  that  men  have 
naturally  a  controversy  with  God,  and  that  they 
need  to  be  "  made  over  again,"  before  they  can 
cheerfully  assert  and  vindicate  his  primitive 
righteousness.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are 
multitudes  whose  views  of  justice  are  such,  that 
"  all  the  elements  of  their  moral  nature  set  them- 


67 

selves  spontaneously"  against  the  representation 
that  infants  thus  suffer  being  innocent.  I  have 
yet  to  learn  that  there  is  an  instance  of  suffering 
in  human  beings,  or  in  any  accountable  creature 
in  the  universe,  without  his  own  consent,  unless 
it  be  by  sin.  But  if  infants  are  sinners,  then  the 
subject  is  perfectly  plain.  Sin  in  an  infant  is  as 
7^eally  ill-deserving,  as  it  is  in  an  adult.  God  is 
just  when  he  speaks,  and  clear  when  he  judges. 
If  infants,  though  they  sin  so  little,  must  suffer  so 
much,  then  indeed  is  sin  in  the  eye  of  God  an 
evil  and  bitter  thing.  How  affecting  the  lesson 
to  all  in  all  worlds !  Tf  these  things  be  done  in 
the  green  tree,  lohat  shall  be  done  in  the  dry? 
Next  to  the  agonies  of  Calvary,  I  know  of 
nothing  in  the  history  of  this  lower  creation, 
fitted  to  hold  an  '^  arrested  universe"  in  awe  of 
God  and  fear  of  sin,  more  than  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  infants.  Nor  can  I  repress  the 
remark,  that  not  to  see  this,  is  lamentable  proof 
of  great  moral  blindness. 

And  now  we  remark,  in  the  last  place,  that 
all  the  previous  considerations  are  confirmed  by 
universal  observation  and  experience.  What  does 
the  experience  of  every  man  teach  him  in  rela- 
tion to  his  own  sinfulness  1  Can  he  recollect  the 
time  when  he  was  not  a  sinner  ?  It  is  true  that 
no  man  can  remember  what  passed  within  his 
mind  in  infancy  and  childliood.  Nor  can  any 
man  remember  half  the  iniquity  of  much  later 


68 

periods.  No  man  can  remember  his  sinful 
thoughts  for  a  single  year,  month,  or  day.  And 
probably  no  man  knows  the  full  extent  of  his 
sinfulness  at  any  one  period.  Who  can  under- 
stand his  errors  7  God  says  of  the  sons  of  men. 
They  consider  not  in  their  ]ieai^ts  that  I  remember 
all  their  idckedness.  But  forgetful  as  they  are, 
and  prone  especially  to  forget  their  iniquity, 
there  is  nothing  they  remember  so  easily.  And 
what  is  a  remarkable  fact,  the  most  aged  persons 
in  the  decline  of  life,  have  often  declared,  that 
they  could  remember  farther  back  in  their  child- 
hood, or  infancy,  than  they  ever  could  before, 
and  that  their  sins  at  that  early  period,  affected 
them  far  more  than  ever.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
when  we  stand  before  God  in  judgment,  we  shall 
look  back  upon  the  moments  of  infantile  depra- 
vity, and  recollect  them  all ;  and  with  amaze- 
ment and  shame,  mark  the  fatal  influence  they 
exerted  on  our  moral  character  through  every 
future  period  of  our  earthly  existence.  Nor  will 
aged  persons,  who  retain  their  faculties,  laugh 
at  this  on  a  dying  bed. 

The  evidence  from  observation  corroborates 
this  evidence  from  experience.  Though  we  do 
not  observe  the  earliest  emotions  of  wicked- 
ness in  the  mind  of  an  infant,  yet  we  discover 
decisive  indications  of  moral  depravity  at  a  very 
early  period.  What  observing  and  pious  parent 
has  not,  as  he  has  looked  upon  a  lovely  child,  or 


69 


pressed  it  to  his  bosom,  many  a  time  sighed, 
because  he  had  so  often  witnessed  in  it  all  the 
elements  of  moral  depravity  1  Where  do  you 
discover  evidence  of  impatience,  obstinacy,  pride, 
self-will,  if  not  in  a  child?  Where  do  you 
discover  that  supreme  selfishness,  which  is  the 
essence  and  substance  of  all  sin,  if  not  in  a  little 
child  1  If  supreme  selfishness  is  sin,  I  am  sure 
the  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity  is  true.  Who 
that  has  had  any  thing  to  do  in  the  early  training 
of  children,  has  not  observed  how  easily  their 
corrupt  affections  are  excited;  how  imitative 
they  are  of  all  that  is  wrong;  how  backward 
and  slow  to  all  that  is  good ;  how  artful  in  all 
their  little  practices  of  iniquity,  and  subterfuges 
for  sin;  and  how  true  it  is,  that  they  are  "  wise 
to  do  evil,  but  to  do  good  they  have  no  know- 
ledge?" We  have  never  beheld  children  in  that 
sinless  state  which  is  contended  for  ;  but  on  the 
other  hand,  at  the  first  development  of  moral 
character,  in  a  state  of  moral  pollution.  And 
this  is  found  true  under  all  circumstances,  under 
every  species  and  degree  of  moral  training,  and 
every  variety  of  example.  Bad  example  will  not 
account  for  it ;  for  it  takes  place  as  extensively 
under  the  influence  of  the  best  example.  In- 
struction the  most  assiduous,  means  of  resistance 
the  most  powerful,  will  not  eradicate  or  overcome 
it ;  for  it  is  found  every  where  in  defiance  of  them 
all.    Now  we  put  the  question  to  every  ingenuous 


70 

man,  would  these  things  be  so,  if  the  human 
mind  were  originally  uncorrupted  and  pure  ? 

For  the  sake  of  illustrating  the  preceding  ob- 
servations, take  a  single  example.  Let  us  sup- 
pose a  child  born  holy.  Would  the  preceding 
remarks  have  any  relevancy  to  the  moral  history 
of  such  a  child  ?  To  make  myself  better  under- 
stood, take  the  character  of  the  only  holy  child 
that  ever  existed,  and  contrast  it  with  that  of 
all  other  children.  I  refer  to  the  infantile  and 
youthful  character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh.  He  possessed  a  human,  as  well 
as  a  divine  nature.  And  the  excellence  of  his 
human  nature,  did  not  at  all  depend  upon  its  per- 
sonal union  with  the  divine  nature.  He  had  a 
human  body  and  a  human  soul;  and  was  born, 
and  lived  in  a  state  of  infancy,  just  as  other  chil- 
dren. Nor  may  it  be  denied,  that  he  was  capable 
of  possessing  a  moral  character  at  his  birth,  and 
that  he  began  to  be  holy  as  soon  as  he  began  to 
exist.  And  yet  he  had  the  same  wants ;  he  was 
bound  by  the  same  rule  of  action ;  and  was  in 
every  respect  placed  essentially  in  the  same  ex- 
ternal condition  with  all  other  children.  Nor  is 
there  any  reason  to  believe  that  his  condition 
was  less  ensnaring,  or  his  natural  appetites  less 
impetuous  than  those  of  other  children.  He  was 
tempted  in  all  points  as  we  are,  though  yet  loith- 
out  sin.  And  yet,  in  his  infancy,  as  well  as  in 
his  manhood,  he  was  holy,  harmless,  undefiled, 


71 

and  separate  from  sinners.  No  untoward  passion 
ever  crossed  his  breast;  no  unholy  thought  ever 
passed  through  his  mind ;  no  angry  or  sinful  ex- 
pression ever  escaped  his  lips ;  and  no  deed  of 
wickedness  ever  polluted  his  hands.  Bad  exam- 
ple did  not  corrupt  him ;  a  corrupting  world  did 
not  lead  him  astray ;  hunger  and  thirst  and  dis- 
appointment did  not  provoke  and  irritate  his  in- 
fantile mind.  And  now  let  the  advocates  of  na- 
tive innocence  inform  us,  if  all  infants  came  into 
the  world  as  innocent  and  sinless  as  the  holy  child 
JesuSj  why  do  they  not  exhibit  some  such  early 
indications  of  sinlessness  as  he  exhibited?  Let 
them  say,  if  this  were  the  case,  why  they  do  not 
in  their  veriest  infancy  and  childhood  exhibit 
altogether  a  different  character  from  that  which 
they  so  uniformly  express.  And  let  them  also 
instruct  us,  if  the  child  Jesus  was  "  born  with 
passions  and  appetites  which  will  certainly  lead 
men  to  sin,  and  always  lead  them  to  sin  in  all 
their  actions  of  a  moral  nature,"  why  he  was  not^ 
upon  their  own  principles,  by  nature  a  child  of 
wrath  even  as  others  7 

Against  this  argument  from  observation,  I 
know  it  is  said  that  children  and  infants  exhibit 
great  simplicity  and  artlessness,  and  great  sweet- 
ness of  disposition.  Dr.  Stuart  says,  "  All  men 
pronounce  infants  to  be  innocent,  until  theory 
bids  them  contradict  this,"  So  they  do  pro- 
nounce them  innocent  of  overt  crime.     Of  the 


72 

acts  for  which  men  are  hung,  they  pronounce 
them  innocent.  But  no  man  has  a  right  to  pro- 
nounce infants  innocent  in  the  sight  of  God. 
What  if  infants  do  express  great  simplicity  and 
sweetness  of  spirit;  this  does  not  prove  that 
they  are  innocent  in  the  sight  of  God.  They 
do  not  express  more  loveliness  of  natural  cha- 
racter, than  many  an  adult  who  has  not  the  fear 
of  God  before  his  eyes,  and  who  neglects  and 
contemns  every  thing  that  is  holy;  not  more 
than  many  an  amiable  Pharisee  ;  not  more  than 
the  lovely  young  Ruler  in  the  gospel,  who  loved 
himself  and  the  world  more  than  Christ,  and 
was  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  the  bonds  of 
iniquity.  Besides,  there  is  good  reason  for  an 
infant's  exhibiting  all  this  sweetness.  He  has 
nothing  to  disturb,  but  every  thing  to  soothe  and 
gratify  his  selfish  disposition.  Every  thing  is 
obsequious  to  his  wishes,  be  they  reasonable,  or 
unreasonable.  I  have  never  thought  it  much 
evidence  of  piety  that  I  am  unruffled  and  amia- 
ble, when  every  thing  goes  well  with  me.  And 
I  very  much  doubt  whether  the  opponents  of 
Native  Depravity,  testy  as  they  are,  when  as- 
sailed, would  not  be  as  placid  and  sweet  as  an 
infant  at  the  breast,  so  long  as  no  favorite  desire 
or  purpose  should  remain  ungratified.  But  how 
easily  are  our  unholy  affections  excited,  when 
we  are  thwarted  and  resisted  in  our  designs; 
when  things  go  ill  with  us ;  and  when  there  are 


73 


motives  and  provocations  to  excite  them.  Just 
so  is  it  with  childi'en  and  infants.  Excite  them, 
and  how  soon  does  a  sinful  heart  discover  itself. 
Every  mother  knows  that  the  peace  and  comfort 
of  her  family  depend  upon  indulging  and  caress- 
ing her  infant ; — a  tremendous  fact  in  its  bearing 
on  the  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity! — And  I 
put  it  to  the  conscience  and  common  sense  of 
my  readers,  whether,  if  God  had  not  been  mer- 
cifully pleased  to  clothe  infancy  with  weakness — 
with  great  helplessness  and  impotence;  and 
instead  of  this,  had  given  infants  existence  in  all 
the  vigor  of  manhood,  and  with  no  more  intelli- 
gence, no  more  experience  than  an  infant  now 
possesses ;  we  should  not  have  evidence  of  Na- 
tive Depravity  in  the  youngest  child,  that  could 
not  be  misunderstood,  and  expressions  of  wick- 
edness that  would  attract  universal  observation? 
We  honestly  confess,  we  know  not  how  to  recon- 
cile what  our  own  experience  and  observation 
teach  us,  with  the  idea  that  infants  are  sinless. 
The  iniquity  of  the  human  mind  shows  itself  by 
sensible  indications,  as  soon  as  it  can  do  so ;  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  could  we  trace  it  to 
its  earliest  infantile  emotions,  we  should  dis- 
cover it  at  the  very  commencement  of  its  ex- 
istence. 

Nor  are  there  any  peculiar  difficulties  in  the 
preceding  exhibition  of  this  truth,  in  distinction 
from  those  that  are  connected  with  the  hypothe-. 

K 


74 

sis,  that  the  human  race  become  sinners  at  any 
period  subsequent  to  their  birth.  There  are 
none  as  it  regards  the  character  of  God.  No 
doubt  we  shall  be  charged  with  the  inference 
that  if  the  doctrine  we  advocate  be  true,  then 
God  is  the  author  of  sin.  That  sin  is  the  object 
of  the  divine  purpose ;  that  its  existence  is 
indispensable  to  that  method  of  redeeming  mercy, 
by  which  God  himself  is  to  be  infinitely  and 
forever  glorified,  and  his  holy  universe  made 
happy  in  him ;  that  his  providence  extends  itself 
to  its  first  introduction  into  our  world ;  and  that 
God  governs  the  conduct  of  men,  and  worketh 
all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  we 
know.  But  this  does  not  prove  that  God  is  the 
author  of  sin ;  nor  that  the  first  sinful  emotion 
of  an  infant's  mind,  is  not  as  really  his  oion,  as 
any  subsequent  emotion.  That  God  is  the  author 
of  sin,  we  have  never  taught  or  defended.  It 
has  been  our  aim  to  present  the  government  of 
the  Most  High  in  this  respect,  as  he  has  presented 
it  in  his  word ;  and  to  enforc6  the  thought,  that 
his  purposes  and  agency  are  exerted  in  some 
form  or  other  to  all  the  actions  of  men.  We 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  saying,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  our  own  standards,  "  God's  works  of 
providence  are  his  most  holy,  wise,  and  power- 
ful, preserving,  and  governing  all  his  creatures 
and  all  their  actions"  "  The  Almighty  power, 
unsearchable  wisdom,  and  infinite  goodness  of 


75 


God,  so  far  manifest  themselves  in  his  provi- 
dence, that  it  extendeth  itself  even  to  the  first 
fall,  and  all  other  sins  of  angels  and  men,  and 
that  not  by  a  bare  permission,  but  such  as 
hath  joined  with  it  a  most  wise,  and  powerful 
bounding,  and  otherwise  ordering  and  governing 
of  them  in  a  manifold  dispensation  to  his  own 
holy  ends;  yet  so,  as'the  .sinfulness  thereof  pro- 
ceedeth  only  from  the  creature,  and  not  from 
God,  who  being  most  holy  and  righteous,  neither 
is,  nor  can  be  the  author  or  approver  of  sin.* 
But  whether  our  opponents  adopt  the  theory  that 
God  has  given  men  passions  and  appetites  that 
''  will  certainly  and  infallibly  lead  them  to  sin,  in 
all  circumstances  of  their  being" — or  the  theory 
that  he  has  given  them  "  a  nature'^  which  infal- 
libly leads  them  to  sin ;  in  either  case  do  they  attri- 
bute the  unfailing  cause  of  human  wickedness, 
to  the  Divine  Being.  Nor  do  men  make  them- 
selves sinners  upon  their  theory,  more  certainly 
than  they  do  upon  the  theory  defended  in  this 
discussion.  There  is  not  a  single  principle  in 
this  discussion  but  is  intended  to  recognize  the 
fact,  that  infants  make  themselves  sinners,  as 
really,  as  adults.  Nor  is  there  any  difficulty 
upon  the  principles  we  have  adopted,  as  it  re- 
gards the  future  state  of  infants ;  while  upon  the 
opposite  theory,  there  are  difficulties  that  have 
not  yet  been  removed.    If  the  theory  advocated  at 

*  Vid.  Assembly's  Catechism — and  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 


76 

New-Haven  and  Andover*  be  true,  then  infants 
are  not  prepared  for  heaven,  because,  though 
they  are  not  sinners,  they  are  not  positively  holy. 
Neither  can  they  perish,  because  they  are  not 
sinners.  If  this  theory  be  true,  then  there  are 
but  three  vrays  in  which  infants  can  possibly  be 
disposed  of.  Either  there  is  a  world  especially 
prepared  for  them;  or  they  enjoy  a  new  pro- 
bation beyond  the  grave;  and  if  there  be  such 
a  probation  for  them^  then  why  not  for  others ; 
or,  they  are  annihilated.  The  Pelagians  held 
to  the  first  of  these  dogmas.  They  taught  "  a 
three-fold  state  after  death  : — damnation  for  sin- 
ners ;  the  kingdom  of  heaven  for  baptized  Chris- 
tians, who  live  a  holy  life,  and  for  baptized  chil- 
dren; and  eternal  life  for  unbaptized  children, 
and  for  unbaptized  adults  who  live  a  holy  life." 
They  held  that  "  when  children  die  without  bap- 
tism, they  are  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  but  not  from  eternal  blessedness  !"t  But 
if  the  principles  we  have  advocated  be  true, 
infants  may  be  saved  just  as  other  sinners  are 
saved ;  through  the  expiation  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  the  renewing  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Nor  upon  our  principles  is  there  any  diffi- 
culty as  it  respects  physical  depravity;  while 
upon  the  opposite  hypothesis,  physical  depra- 
vity is  affirmed  with  a  witness;  for  it  declares 

♦  I  say  at  Andover;  though  I  have  no  reason  to  beheve  that  the  error  extends 
hpyond  the  author  who  has  pubHshed  it  to  the  world,  in  his  Commpntary  on 
the  Epistlp  to  the  Romans. 

+  Mvirdock's  Mosheim,  vol.  1,  p.  440. 


77 

that  there  is  something  in  the  physical  and 
intellectual  constitution  of  all  Adam's  posterity, 
for  which  they  are  not  to  blame,  and  which 
ensures  their  destruction.  We  hope  the  advo- 
cates of  the  Pelagian  doctrine  will  remove 
these  difficulties,  and  especially  that  they  will 
vindicate  the  divine  character  in  the  existence 
of  such  a  race  of  creatures  as  man.  This  they 
have  never  done.  I  ask  them,  do  they  find  no 
difficulties  in  doing  this?  They  have  affirmed 
the  subject  is  plain.  But  is  it  so  to  themselves? 
And  if  it  is,  for  one  I  shall  be  grateful  to  them  to 
make  it  fully  appear  to  my  own  mind,  and  to 
other  minds  which  are  at  present  not  a  little 
embarrassed  by  their  vain  philosophy. 

The  leading  arguments  in  favor  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Native  Depravity  are  now  before  my 
readers.  If  infants  are  capable  of  sinning;  if 
they  belong  to  the  posterity  of  our  apostate  pri- 
mogenitor, and  fell  through  his  fall ;  if  they  com- 
pose a  part  of  the  race  who  are  all  guilty  before 
God ;  if  they  go  astray  from  the  womb ;  if  they 
bear  the  external  symbols  of  a  covenant  of 
mercy;  if  they  can  be  saved  through  the  blood 
of  the  great  atonement;  if  they  are  capable 
of  being  renewed  by  the  Spirit  of  God  after 
the  image  of  him  that  created  them ;  if  they  suf- 
fer and  die ;  and  if  experience  and  observation 
confirm  these  truths;  then  are  they  sinners. 
The  reverse  of  this  conclusion,  in  my  humble 


78 


judgment,  is  every  way  revolting  to  common 
sense  and  Christian  feeling.  It  throws  infants 
out  of  the  economy  of  redemption.  It  throws 
them  beyond  the  reach  of  the  divine  influence. 
It  throws  them  out  of  the  circle  of  the  divine 
government.  It  puts  them  beyond  the  reach  of 
prayer :  and  though  perfectly  innocent,  consigns 
them  to  pain,  suffering  and  death,  in  the  present 
world,  and  beyond  the  grave  makes  them, — 
lohat  7  and  consigns  them, — wJdther  7 

But  I  may  not  close  this  discussion  without 
the  following 

REMARKS. 

1.  We  regard  the  doctrine  in  question  as  one  of 
soletnn  mome^it.  It  was  with  the  denial  of  this 
doctrine,  that  the  errors  of  the  once  evangelical 
churches  in  New-England  began.  Let  the  his- 
tory of  Unitarianism  in  Boston  and  Cambridge, 
and  the  history  of  this  controversy,  as  it  has  been 
developed  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  published 
at  New-Haven,  be  our  comment  on  this  remark. 
Let  the  history  of  the  Christian  church  in  all 
ages  speak,  and  it  will  speak  the  same  language. 
Wherever  the  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity  has 
been  denied,  or  called  in  question,  there  all  the 
discriminating  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are,  or 
soon  will  be,  loosely  taught,  and  a  kind  of  reli- 
gion prevail,  very  diverse  from  the  religion  of  our 
fathers,  and  as  we  judge,  from  the  religion  of  the 
Bible.     We  know  this  suggestion  is  indignantly 


79 

repelled.  But  facts  are  stubborn  things.  I  have 
taken  not  a  little  pains  to  ascertain  the  state  of 
vital  piety,  and  the  character  of  the  revivals  of  re- 
ligion, in  those  churches  and  institutions  where 
this  error  prevails,  and  the  result  is  a  thorough 
conviction,  that  the  error  is  fraught  with  mischie- 
vous consequences  to  the  souls  of  men.  This 
single  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity,  will  be 
found  to  lie  near  the  basis  of  all  the  differences 
between  Pelagians  and  Arminians,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  consistent  and  thorough-going  Calvin- 
ists  on  the  other.  A  living  German  author  of 
high  reputation,  and  decidedly  evangelical  senti- 
ments, speaking  of  the  importance  of  the  ques- 
tions under  discussion,  between  Augustine,  the 
defender  of  the  doctrine  of  Native  Depravity, 
and  Pelagius.  his  opponent,  says,  "  Pelagius,  and 
especially  Cselesthis,  endeavored  to  diminish  the 
impression  of  the  importance  of  these  questions, 
as  if  all  existing  differences  could  be  resolved  into 
merely  speculative  varieties  of  sentiment,  which 
had  nothing  to  do  with  faith.  They  were  led 
to  this,  however,  by  the  relation  in  which  they 
stood  to  the  prevailing  party  in  the  church ; 
since  it  was  at  first  their  chief  concern^  to  he 
allowed  to  propagate  freely  their  own  peculiar 
sentiments  in  connection  icith  those  to  ichich  they 
ivere  opposed.  Quite  different  was  the  declara- 
tion of  the  violent  and  reckless  Julian,  bishop 
of   Eclanum,   who  had   been   excommunicated 


80 

from  the  Catholic  church,  and  had  therefore  no 
longer  any  occasion  to  seek  for  a  peaceable  ad- 
justment of  differences.  He  speaks  very  empha- 
tically against  those  of  his  party,  who,  for  reasons 
of  worldly  policy,  submitted  to  the  reigning 
power,  and  then  comforted  themselves  by  say- 
ing, that  this  controversy  did  not  concern  the 
essentials  of  faith,  but  turned  upon  obscure 
questions,  which  had  little  to  do  with  the  vital 
points  of  Christianity. — Nor,  on  the  other  side, 
did  Augustine  concede  to  Ccelestius,  that  this 
controversy  was  so  unimportant  in  its  bearings 
on  Christian  theology.  Believing  that  the  doc- 
trine of  a  Redeemer  and  a  redemption,  in  which 
the  essence  of  Christianity  consists,  pre-supposes 
a  recognition  of  the  need  of  redemption;  he 
held  that  the  doctrine  of  redemption  is  therefore 
closely  connected  with  that  of  the  depravity  of 
human  nature,  and  consequently  with  the  doc- 
trine respecting  the  first  sin,  and  its  conse- 
quences ;  and  that  the  former  fundamental  doc- 
trine loses  all  its  significance,  unless  the  latter 
doctrines  are  pre-supposed.  In  the  contrast  be- 
tween Adam  and  Christ,  therefore,  consists  the 
very  essence  of  Christianity."  The  same  writer 
then  remarks,  "  If  we  confine  ourselves  to  the 
points  which  were  stated  by  the  two  parties 
themselves,  and  of  which  they  had  formed  dis- 
tinct conceptions,  it  must  appear  that  this  contro- 
versy arose  from  the  different  modes  of  consider- 


81 

ing  human  nature  in  its  present  state ;  or  rather, 
from  the  different  vieics  entertained  respecting 
the  relation  of  the  present  moral  condition  of 
mankind  to  the  sin  of  Adam.  In  every  thing 
else  which  came  into  discussion — the  different 
views  entertained  as  to  man's  need  of  assist- 
ance, as  to  the  nature  of  redemption,  as  to  the 
work  which  Christ  performed,  and  the  influence 
of  Christianity,  as  to  the  object  and  efficacy  of 
baptism,  in  short  every  point  debated  between 
the  two  parties,  was  intimately  connected  with 
this  fundamental  difference.  Augustine  always 
came  back  at  last  to  this,  that  man  is  in  a  state 
of  corruption ;  and  this,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
always  the  point  to  which  the  disavowal  of  the 
Pelagians  especially  referred."*  Such  were  the 
views  of  intelligent  men  on  both  sides  of  the 
question,  as  to  the  importance  of  the  doctrine 
of  Native  Depravity  as  early  as  the  third  cen- 
tury. And  though  there  have  been,  and  still 
are,  some  diversities  in  their  representations  of 
the  doctrine  among  different  classes  of  Calvin- 
istic  divines,  such  are  their  views  of  its  import- 
ance still.  All  classes  of  Calvinists  have  con- 
sidered this  doctrine  as  a  primary  and  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  gospel.  Owen  and 
Ridgely,  Charnock  and   Howe,   Edwards   and 

♦  Vid.  An  article  in  the  Biblical  Repository  for  January,  1833,  entitled, 
Augustine  and  Pelagius  compared,  by  Augustus  Neander,  Professor  of  Theo- 
logy in  the  University  of  Berlin— Translated  by  Leonard  Woods,  Jun 

L 


82 


Davies,  Witherspoon  and  Fuller,  Bellamy  and 
Hopkins,  Dwight  and  Emmons,  have  built  their 
systems  upon  this  foundation,  and  have  deemed 
it  as  important  to  maintain  this  doctrine,  as  to 
maintain  the  gospel. 

I  have  observed  that  error  on  this  subject 
is  often  imbibed  with  little  reflection,  and  little 
inquiry  and  investigation,  except  on  one  side  of 
the  question.  Many  of  my  readers  will  recollect 
the  time  when  young  men  preparing  for  the 
ministry,  and  young  converts  were  extremely  cau- 
tious in  receiving  new  opinions ;  and  when  they 
would  read  much,  and  pray  much,  and  converse 
with  experienced  and  intelligent  men,  and  men 
whose  character  had  been  long  established,  be- 
fore they  committed  themselves  against  any  im- 
portant doctrine  that  had  been  long  received  in 
the  church  of  God.  But  how  is  it  now  ?  How 
do  young  converts  and  young  ministers  adopt 
error  with  as  little  reflection,  as  though  it  were 
of  no  practical  moment;  and  because  it  is 
soothing  to  the  pride  of  human  reason,  and 
the  self- righteousness  of  the  natural  heart,  de- 
fend it  with  a  pertinacity  worthy  of  a  better 
cause  !  Thus  it  is,  that  one  truth  after  another 
is  plucked  from  its  orbit,  and  we  are  left  to 
grope  our  way  backward  to  ages  of  Pelagian 
darkness. 

If  we  have  magnified  the  subject,  or  mag- 
nified the  differences,  or  misinterpreted  the  bear- 


83 


ings  and  connections  of  this  error,  none  will  be 
more  gratified  or  thankful  for  the  correction 
than  we  ourselves.  But  to  me  it  appears,  that 
this,  and  kindred  doctrines,  ought  to  draw  a 
dividing  line  between  ministers  and  churches. 
Nor  is  the  church  safe  without  this  division. 
Much  as  I  mourn  over  the  fact  in  one  view, 
in  another  I  rejoice  in  it.  Though  I  have 
seen  enough  of  a  divisive  spirit  to  bewail  divi- 
sions ;  though  I  have  peculiar  reasons  to  lament 
it ;  though  I  have  many  a  time  said  with  the  pro- 
phet, Wo  is  me,  niy  mother,  that  thou  hast  home 
me  a  man  of  strife;  and  though  I  love  old 
attachments,  and  old  friends ;  I  may  not  consult 
considerations  of  this  sort,  at  the  expense  of 
material  and  fundamental  truth.  I  sigh  for 
union  and  peace  in  God's  long  disjointed  and 
contending  heritage,  but  not  with  the  loss  of 
this  cardinal  doctrine  of  his  word.  It  would 
be  criminally  deceitful  to  profess  to  unite  with 
men  and  measures,  whose  views  and  influence 
obviously  tend  to  obscure  the  truth,  and  retard 
the  advancement  of  the  Redeemer's  cause.  The 
unwearied  assiduity  with  which  this  error  is 
diffused  calls  for  wakeful  effort.  And,  if  I 
mistake  not,  the  sjjirit  with  which  it  is  dis- 
seminated, is  indicative,  vainly  indicative  of 
triumph.  I  regret  to  say,  that  it  is  a  bold  and 
vaunting  spirit,  and  has  treated  the  doctrine  of 
Native  Depravity  and  other  kindred  doctrines 


84 


as  though  they  were  some  latent  part  of  mys- 
tical Babylon,  which  must  certainly  and  soon 
come  down.  Let  ministers  and  churches  look 
about  them.  Let  them  read  and  investigate. 
And  let  him  that  readeth  understand.*  Let  the 
ministers  of  our  own  beloved,  but  bleeding  church 
especially,  stand  firm  and  erect  in  their  defence  of 
the  truth  of  God,  and  their  attachment  to  our 
invaluable  standards;  let  Presbyteries  be  firm 
and  faithful;  let  all  watch  and  pray  for  more  of 
the  spirit  of  their  divine  Master;  and  unless  he 
designs  to  bring  upon  us  days  of  deep  darkness, 
these  moral  pollutions,  which  already  begin  to 
corrupt  our  revivals,  and  lead  away  youthful 
professors,  will  soon  disappear. 

2.  In  view  of  the  thoughts  that  have  been 
suggested,  we  may  dwell  a  moment  upon  the 
intrinsic  importance  of  every  child.  A  little 
child,  is  a  frail,  weak,  abject  creature.  Perhaps 
it  may  only  open  its  eyes  upon  the  light  of  this 
world,  and  then  close  them  in  the  sleep  of  death. 
But  it  is  born  for  immortality.  Its  body  may 
languish  and  die ;  but  it  has  a  spirit,  immaterial 
and  immortal,  that  survives  the  frail  tabernacle 
in  which  it  dwells ;  outlives  all  the  changes  and 
all  the  inferior  creatures  of  this  lower  world; 
and  when  the  earth  shall  have  been  dissolved  and 
the  elements  melted  away,  shall  but  just  have 

*  A  very  valuable  pamphlet  has  lately  appeared,  styled,  Letters  on  the 
present  state  and  probable  results  of  Theological  Speculations  in  Connecticut, 
by  an  Edwardean,  written  with  clearness,  force,  and  a  Christian  spirit. 


85 


broken  the  bandages  of  its  infancy,  and  entered 
upon  its  everlasting  manhood.     Stupid  and  igno- 
rant as  it  may  appear  to  the  eye  of  men,  in  the 
eye  of  God  it  is  invested  with  faculties  which 
enable  it  to  make  perpetual  advances  in  know- 
ledge, and  is  tending  toward  a  degree  of  light, 
sensibility  and  importance,  of  which  we  can  form 
no  conception.     There  is  no  thoughtlessness,  no 
stupidity  in  an  infant's  mind,  when  once  it  is 
transferred  to  another  state  of  existence,  and 
attains  the  full  growth  of  eternity.     The  blow 
that  seems  ''  to  prostrate  and  imprison  it  in  the 
grave,"  only  gives  it  pinions,  and  crowns  it  with 
triumph.      Its   very  moral    depravity,    too — its 
meanness  and  vileness  may  serve  to  discover  in 
the   strongest,   clearest,  steadiest  light  the  in- 
effable goodness,  and  grace,  and  wisdom  of  God 
in  that  great  redemption  which  he  has  revealed 
to  fallen  men.     Were  it  not  so,  it  would  be  a 
mystery  to  us  that  such  a  race  of  beings  should 
ever  have  been  brought  into   existence.      But 
this,  in  its  combined  and  contrasted  splendors,  is 
the  back  ground  of  the  greatest,  the  brightest 
moral  wonder  the  universe  has  ever  beheld.     In 
the  redemption  of  fallen  infants,   God  has   so 
displayed  abroad  the  glorious  perfections  of  his 
nature,  as  to   arrest,  impress,  and  transfix  the 
wondering  universe.     He  has  formed  a  race  of 
beings   distinguished   by   weakness,   ignorance, 
and  comparative  insensibility,  and  from  these  is 


86 

raising  up  a  great  multitude  which  no  man  can 
number,  to  an  equality  in  knowledge,  sensibility 
and  happiness,  with  the  angels  of  light.  He 
took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels^  hut  the  seed 
of  Abraham.  This  race  of  fallen  infants  is  the 
object  of  his  greatest  love — his  most  distin- 
guished and  distinguishing  mercy.  He  passed 
by  angels,  and  stooped  to  children.  He  left  the 
wise  and  pr^udent,  and  revealed  his  love  to  babes. 
Notwithstanding  all  their  abjectness  and  pollu- 
tion, he  pitied  them ;  and  though  by  nature  chil- 
dren of  wrath,  through  them,  shows  forth  even  to 
principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly  j^laces,  his 
manifold  wisdom.  God  has  manifested  no  such 
goodness  to  any  portion  of  the  universe,  as  he 
has  to  this  race  of  abject,  apostate  infants.  No 
where  has  his  goodness  assumed  a  form  so  pecu- 
liar, so  alluring,  so  full  of  Deity,  as  it  here 
assumes  in  the  form  of  grace  to  the  guilty.  No 
where  does  it  flow  through  such  a  medium — the 
blood  of  his  only  Son.  For  no  object  do  so 
many  events  in  heaven,  and  on  earth,  and  in 
hell — so  many  moral  revolutions — so  many 
beings,  high  and  low,  holy  and  sinful — so  many 
designs  of  unerring  wisdom — so  many  expres- 
sions of  omnipotent  power — so  many  exhibi- 
tions of  amiable  and  awful  sovereignty — so 
many  of  terrible  righteousness  and  wonderful 
mercy  co-operate,  and  in  their  wide  connections 
and  everlasting  results,  maintain  so  universal 


S7 

a  subservency,  as  for  the  redemption  of  fallen 
infants.  It  were  a  higher  privilege  therefore, 
to  be  created  an  infant  than  an  angel.  The  cra- 
dle is  the  threshold  of  that  everlasting  temple, 
where  myriads  will  bow  with  more  than  a  sera- 
phic ardor,  and  higher  than  an  angel's  song. 
Let  the  mind  extend  itself  to  the  ever-growing 
scenes  of  eternity,  and  follow  the  soul  of  the 
youngest  infant,  as  it  rises  in  moral  beauty  and 
ceaseless  joy  before  the  throne  of  God,  and  con- 
template it  in  the  light  in  which  it  will  appear  in 
the  progress  of  eternal  ages ;  and  it  will  be 
amazed  and  confounded  at  the  incomprehensible 
capacity,  the  infinite  worth  and  importance  of 
the  meanest  child  of  Adam. 

3.  What  reason  have  we  for  solicitude  on 
account  of  our  children  ?  They  are  bo7'n  in 
sin.  They  partake  of  the  same  sinning,  cor- 
rupt nature  with  their  parents.  From  the 
crown  of  their  heads  to  the  soles  of  their  feet, 
they  are  full  of  loounds,  and  bruises^  and  putri- 
fying  sores,  that  have  not  been  bound  up,  nor 
mollified  with  ointment.  Their  hearts  are  full 
of  evil,  and  in  them  there  dicelleth  no  good  thing. 
They  are  estranged  from  the  icomb ;  they  go  astray 
as  soon  as  they  are  born,  speaking  lies.  Their 
poison  is  like  the  j)oison  of  a  serj^ent.  It  is  as 
natural  for  them  to  sin,  as  it  is  for  the  sting  of  a 
serpent  to  be  poisonous.  They  are  under  the 
wrath  and  curse  of  God,  and  there  is  no  redemp- 


88 

tion  for  them  but  through  the  propitiation  of  his 
only  Son.  What  spectacle  is  more  affecting,  than 
an  immortal  being  entering  upon  its  only  proba- 
tion, with  such  a  character !  Every  time  you  look 
upon  a  little  child,  or  a  sleeping  infant,  you 
see, — Avhat  ?  An  apostate  sinner — man  fallen — 
human  nature  in  ruins  !  When  you  clasp  your 
fond  babes  to  your  bosom,  well  may  solicitude 
and  compassion  find  a  dwelling  within  your 
heart.  With  all  those  lineaments  of  intelli- 
gence, and  of  beauty  and  amiableness,  they  are 
dead  in  sin.  That  warm  heart  that  trembles 
and  beats  at  your  side,  "  beats  iniquity  and 
death."  Ah !  how  often  have  the  interest  and 
pride  of  many  a  gratified  parent  been  turned  to 
tenderness  and  tears,  as  she  bore  her  endeared 
offspring  in  her  arms,  and  recollected  that  it  is 
the  child  ofivrath,  even  as  others.  Our  children, 
like  ourselves,  are  earth-born,  carnal,  and  under 
the  wrath  of  God ;  and  never  let  our  parental, 
our  Christian  solicitude  cease  for  them,  till  they 
are  born  again,  born  from  above,  spiritual,  and 
justified  freely  by  the  grace  of  God^  thi^ough  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ. 

4.  Let  us  appreciate  the  high  importance  of 
Christian  education.  The  parent  or  guardian, 
who,  in  all  their  course  of  intellectual  and  moral 
training,  does  not  recognise  the  native  depra- 
vity of  children  loses  sight  of  the  truth  most 
important  to  his  success.    If  we  could  adopt  the 


89 

sentiment  that  children  are  by  nature  innocent, 
we  might  with  greater  safety  throw  off  the  re- 
sponsibility of  training  them  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  But  if  they  are 
sinners,  what  immeasurable  importance  is  at- 
tached to  an  early  religious  education !  What 
higher  inducement  to  humble,  zealous,  well- 
directed,  persevering,  prayerful  efforts,  can  be 
presented  to  a  Christian  mind,  than  the  view  of 
an  immortal  creature  commencing  its  everlasting 
career  in  sin,  and  destined,  without  the  blessing 
of  God  upon  the  most  wise  and  efficient  direc- 
tion, to  grow  up  the  slave  of  ignorance  and  pas- 
sion; and  with  no  other  impulse  than  what  he 
receives  from  his  own  corruptions,  to  pursue  his 
steady  and  rapid  course  to  the  pit !  What  class 
of  beings  in  the  universe  of  God  have  greater 
need  of  an  early,  wise,  well-regulated  educa- 
tion, than  the  race  of  fallen  infants'?  What  a 
curse  must  their  intelligence  and  immortality 
prove  to  them,  unless  they  enjoy  a  seasonable 
and  faithful  moral  culture !  What  other  pre- 
servative is  there  for  such  a  mind  from  vice  the 
most  precocious,  and  perdition  the  most  unexam- 
pled and  premature?  Ah!  how  soon  will  it  de- 
scend to  every  thing  that  is  brutal  and  low,  if  it 
has  not  early  access  to  the  refined  pleasures  of 
intelligence  and  religion.  How  strong,  how 
affecting  the  obligation  on  parents,  to  be  un- 
wearied and  prayerful  in  their  efforts  to  form 


90 

the  tender  minds  of  children  and  imbue  them  with 
principles  of  piety.  Parents,  guardians,  teachers ! 
to  you  the  solemn  charge  is  committed,  Train  up 
a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  lohen  he  is 
old,  he  will  not  depart  from  it.  True  religion 
would  soon  forsake  the  earth,  if  children  are 
allowed  to  follow  the  natural  impulse  of  their 
own  minds,  and  live  without  God  in  the  world. 
Mournful  must  be  the  prospect  of  successive 
generations,  if  there  be  not  found  in  good  men, 
and  in  the  church  of  God  collectively,  the  most 
seasonable,  watchful,  and  patient  effort  to  arrest 
the  progress  of  wickedness  in  the  youthful  mind. 
It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  do  any  thing  to 
ruin  our  children ;  they  are  ruined  already — by 
nature  children  of  wrath;  but  to  avert  the 
ruin,  to  stem  the  tide  of  corruption,  to  rescue 
this  immortal  creature  from  the  precipice — this 
is  the  momentous  effort. 

5.  Let  us  be  grateful  for  the  privilege  of  conse- 
crating our  children  to  God  in  baptism.  The 
baptismal  font  meets  the  solicitude  of  a  parent, 
and  the  exigencies  of  his  child  at  the  very  point 
where  they  begin,  and  where,  if  unrelieved,  they 
wring  the  heart  with  anguish.  We  consecrate 
our  children  to  God,  not  because  they  are  inca- 
pable of  moral  action — not  because  they  are 
innocent — but  because  they  are  sinners.  They 
need  the  lo ashing  of  regeneration,  and  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  blood  of  Jesus   Christ.     Our  cove- 


91 


nant  God  has  said,  /  will  be  a  God  to  thee^  and 
thy  seed.  The  Holy  Spirit  has  said,  /  ivill  pour 
icater  upon  him  that  is  thirsty^  and  floods  upon 
the  dry  gi'oujid ;  I  ivill  pour  my  Spirit  iqmn  thy 
seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring.  And 
the  Mediator  of  the  new  Covenant  has  said, 
Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  In  this  ordinance  of  baptism,  I 
see,  if  I  may  so  speak,  a  gracious  offset  to  the 
native  depravity  of  our  children.  I  have  a  sweet 
exposition  of  that  cheering  sentence.  Where  sin 
abounds,  grace  doth  much  more  abound.  I  see 
the  ruin;  and  I  behold  the  significant  remedy. 
I  listen  with  grateful  emotion  to  the  voice  of  the 
Son  of  God  when  he  says,  And  when  fjjassed 
by  thee,  and  saw  thee  polluted  in  thine  own  blood., 
I  said  unto  thee  when  thou  wast  in  thy  blood,  live  ; 
yea,  I  said  unto  thee  ichen  thou  umst  in  thy  blood, 
LIVE.  The  church  of  the  first-born  were  once 
ruined  and  polluted  infants.  Out  of  the  mouth 
of  babes  and  sucklings,  God  has  ordained 
strength.  Found  in  the  waste,  howling  wil- 
derness, myriads  of  renovated  and  sanctified  in- 
fants have  already  been  brought  to  their  father's 
house.  Sunk  in  the  abyss  of  native  pollution, 
once  quivering  on  the  verge  of  death  and  hell, 
they  have  been  raised  to  the  high  elevations  of 
the  church  on  earth,  and  the  loftier  elevations 
of  the  church  in  heaven.     But  since  God  is  the 


92 


sovereign  of  his  own  grace,  and  will  bestow  it 
in  his  own  way,  let  us  feel  it  our  privilege  to 
seek  and  expect  his  blessing  for  our  children 
through  the  medium  of  his  own  ordinance.  Let 
us  bring  our  little  ones  to  Christ,  with  the  hum- 
ble acknowledgment  that  they  are  in  perish- 
ing need  of  his  blessing.  Let  us  bring  them  with 
faith  in  him,  as  one  who  is  mighty  to  save.  Let 
us  bring  them,  gratefully  acknowledging  the 
encouragement  he  has  given  us  so  to  do,  and 
confiding  in  his  love,  his  promise,  his  faithful- 
ness, as  our  God,  and  our  fathers'  God.  I  may 
add 

6.  JVatiiie  Depravity  is  no  excuse  for  sin.  Mul- 
titudes suppose  it  to  be  so ;  and  say,  they  cannot 
help  sinning,  because  they  were  born  sinners. 
But  all  sin,  whether  in  infants  or  adults,  is  with- 
out excuse.  Who  will  say  that  sinful  emotions 
in  an  infant's  mind  are  not  criminal  7  Who  has 
not  felt  that  he  ought  to  be  more  deeply  humbled 
before  God,  for  having  been  a  sinner  from  his 
birth?  An  enlightened  conscience,  never  origi- 
nated the  excuse,  that  men  are  less  guilty,  be- 
cause their  guilt  commenced  with  their  existence. 
For  one,  I  have  no  such  refuge,  no  such  cause 
for  self-gratulation  and  self-complacency,  that 
the  time  was  when  I  was  not  a  sinner.  Nor  is 
my  native  depravity  my  misfortune  merely,  but 
my  fault.  Sure  I  am  that  I  stand  condemned  at 
the  bar  of  conscience  and  at  the  bar  of  God,  for 


93 


my  native  depravity.  Just  so  long  as  there  is 
an  essential  and  immutable  difference  between 
right  and  wrong,  there  is  no  excuse  for  sin, 
whether  begun  earlier  or  later.  The  least  sin 
is  rebellion,  and  deserves  God's  wrath  and  curse. 
And  it  is  a  weighty  and  self- condemning  truth  we 
utter.  We  have  no  cloak  for  our  sin.  The  feel- 
ings which  become  us  are  those  of  conscious 
ill-desert  and  shame.  If  thou^  Lord^  shouldst 
mark  iniquity^  O  Lord^  loho  could  stand  ?  Enter 
not  into  judgment  loith  thy  servants,  for  in  thy 
sight  no  flesh  living  shall  be  justified !  Let  us 
often  think  of  the  import  of  that  dreadful  sen- 
tence, The  soul  that  sinneth  shall  die. —  The  wages 
of  sin  is  death !  Every  sin  deserves  God's  wrath 
and  curse,  both  in  this  life  and  that  which  is  to 
come.  And  do  the  feet  of  any  of  my  readers 
still  stand  on  slippery  places'?  Go  then,  and  say 
with  David,  when  kneeling  before  the  throne, 
and  with  a  melting,  bleeding  heart,  say,  Behold, 
I  icas  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my 
mother  conceive  me !  Go,  and  mourn  with  Paul, 
O  wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  shall  deliver  me 
from  the  body  of  this  death! 


THE    END. 


m 


fyM'- 


